[acm-tf] suggestion

Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Denis,
>
> On 03/05/2011 14:43, Denis Walker wrote:
>> HI
>>
>> Something for you to think about and feel free to grab me any time this
>> week if you want any more information.
>>
>> I was talking to Tobias this morning about some design ideas I have had
>> over the last year for handling abuse POC information. While talking
>> another idea came to mind. It would be quite easy for us to rename the
>> "mnt-irt:" attribute to "abuse-c:". This would virtually implement the
>> whole requirement for an abuse POC, without affecting its use for
>> Incident Response Teams. It would still require authentication to add a
>> reference to the IRT.
>
> I think this could well be a good idea, although I would, of course,
> welcome more feedback on it, especially from Wilfried. If the TF is
> happy with the principle of this idea, we can float it to the
> community on Thursday in DB & AA (but again, state that further
> updates will be in AA) and see what kind of reaction we get. I've just
> been speaking to Tobias and I'm wondering how much admin would be
> around this, ie would it require a policy or not? But this is
> something we can figure out fairly easily.

Renaming the attribute is a semantic change and does not in any way
change any existing behaviour. But the impact of a simple name change
could be huge. Now it is a weird maintainer attribute name that does not
even point to a maintainer object. Add to that the out of date
documentation about the IRT object and nothing gives anyone confidence
that this is the place to document an abuse contact. This name change,
coupled with up to date documentation, makes it intuitive:

Where do I document my abuse contact information?
I see there is an "abuse-c:" attribute.
It points to an object with an "abuse-mailbox:" attribute.
That must be the place.

It leads you to the right place.

But this change does not address some of the other concerns raised by
the Task Force yesterday about use of hierarchies and mandatory/required
issues. That is something the Task Force still needs to discuss and may
need a policy to implement any outcomes of those discussions.

regards
denis

>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian.
>
>