Hi Denis, I can not believe that you are commenting on my view on how this should be implemented. On 3/11/16 8:29 PM, ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

HI Randy

My last comment on this thread (probably)....

The position he stated was not conducive with his experience. What do you mean? I have 15+ years experience of using the RIPE Database, 7 of which I was a colleague of yours at the RIPE NCC. I commented based on my experience. Is my experience of a lower value than yours? He offered no supporting arguments, just an emotive comment that was highly critical of something I developed. I did not mean to criticize your work, I just wanted to say that the implementation could have been done differently.

As for supporting arguments, I think that I did offered supporting arguments. I think that abuse-c should have been implemented just as tech-c or admin-c already are implemented since the creation of the RIPE Database.

It is like me saying the development of a market for selling IP addresses is poor. Does that statement from me carry any weight? I see no link between the two, other than you trying to attack back. I have not developed the IPv4 market. Your statement carries the same weight as mine in a discussion. As the developer of what he claimed to be poor, I think I had the right to point this out. You took it as a personal attack, you should have not as this was developed by the RIPE NCC and not by the person Denis.. If you felt offended about my comment, why did you not feel offended about Gert's comments, which were similar?

But as Brian said this is way of the topic now of adding abuse-c to legacy resources. So I won't make any more comments about the design of abuse-c in this thread. I did say long ago in this discussion that the technical aspects of abuse-c should be the subject of another discussion. But people just kept coming back with arguments against it. So, just comment on this topic then. No need to send several e-mails 'defending' your work. You no longer work at the RIPE NCC and what has been done, is done.

From my point of view, abuse-c in legacy objects should be as mandatory as it is for resource objects registered by the RIPE NCC. So, yes, I support this proposal, I would only have done it differently to begin with.

I wish some of you would put as much effort into constructive discussions about the more serious technical issues of the database (including the route object issue and the data model) as you do into either condemning me or blanking me out.

The clear and obvious refusal by the very small, unrepresentative group of people on these mailing lists to even engage in any kind of discussion on an important issue I have raised many times will not do this community or the RIR system any good in the long term. Do not compare apples and pears, one thing is the abuse-c and an other

I was under the impression that my comment was constructive. I never condemned you nor did I ever try to blank you out, you have the right to comment just as I do. I just wanted to voice my opinion that this could have been done differently to start with and I was actually only agreeing with Gert that abuse-c can be done differently and (from my point of view) better. thing is the route object issue or the greater data model... I see you are sending dozens of e-mails trying to impose your view on how the RIPE Database model should work.. Maybe you are right, maybe things should be done differently. Just come up with a policy proposal instead of making so much noise on the mailing list. But maybe you are wrong, and you should also try to take a step back when you see that the others do not agree with you. You are talking about the 'very small, unrepresentative group of people on these mailing lists'. Well, these are the people that want to voice their opinion. The others can not be bothered to comment or participate in these processes, they gladly accept what is decided on behalf of them by this 'small group'.

cheers denis

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> *To:* ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk *Cc:* Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>; "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> *Sent:* Saturday, 12 March 2016, 2:53 *Subject:* Re: [db-wg] Fw: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

...

...

Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement of 'poor' does not carry much weight.

Denis, how do you know how much data I input in the RIPE Database? You are making assumptions based on a very poor (pun intended) understanding on what I do.

...

I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis expressed his opinion on my implementation :)

your opinion was of elvis not his position. this is called ad homina, which you seem to repeat

and repeat, and repeat, and repeat.... let's stop this nonsense and talk about what is really important at this moment. Should abuse-c be mandatory, optional, or not at all in the legacy resource objects? I already said above that I do support this policy proposal but I would like to see it implemented differently, even if that means that the RIPE NCC may need to change the way abuse-c was implemented initially. cheers, elvis

Hi Denis,

And that is the issue. No one disagrees with me! But only one person (on these lists) agrees with me. So in theory that should be a consensus for moving forward. But generally every time I mention the data model my comments are totally ignored.

I will not guess what other people think, but when I did exactly that in a recent exchange it was not out of disagreement or opposition, but simply for complete lack of interest in that discussion. Should a new data model be discussed? Maybe, I don't care. Would it help in the current discussion about abuse-c? Certainly not.

Simplifying the data model benefits new members more than the people on these lists.

Allow me one comment on the recurring theme of the actual setup being over complicated for newcomers: I'm using the RIPE DB (as a data provider) only a couple of times per year, and only have been doing so for a couple of years. When I had to do it, I took a few moments to understand it, and to read the most important documents. It was really not something challenging. Doing this is what I consider the most elementary courtesy towards the maintainers of the system. Any my tolerance towards people not putting some moderate effort into using a system is fairly low. So should a new data model be simpler? If there is a case for that, why not - but not at the cost of flexibility for users that accept to put some brain in it. Or you will end up with something along the lines of "make something an idiot can use and only an idiot will want to use it".

The only thing I see is that it is obvious the people on these lists are not interested in even discussing the topic. Professional courtesy would mean some people would at least state their objection to even discussing this topic, even if it is "leave it alone, 'we' don't want it changed, it is of no benefit to us and we don't care about the wider community". It is not possible to have an open discussion on these lists if you hit a topic they don't want to talk about.

Courtesy also dictates not to intervene in a discussion you do not care about.

I don't think there is any point having this discussion now on these lists. The silence is clear what their views are.

No, not that clear.

I am looking at other avenues to raise this subject, away from these lists.

Personally I don't think that these lists are suited for an open-ended discussion on something this abstract. Not unless some kind of draft proposal is to be discussed. best, Gilles -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 2, avenue de l'université LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette