[acm-tf] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal

Hi Denis,

> >>> On 10/Oct/11 15:40, Denis Walker wrote:
> >>>> "The "abuse-c:" reference to an abuse handler should make use of the
> >>>> hierarchical nature of the resource data to minimise the workload on
> >>>> resource holders and facilitate good database design."

> My reasoning for suggesting something along these lines was to avoid the
> situation in APNIC where they added a reference to every INET(6)NUM
> object. This resulted in millions of repeated, redundant references.
> That is a bad design from every angle. So my point was that if the

i can see lots of disadvatages, but the one advantage is that of
clarity: everything related to an objct is directly referred to,
no magic search applies.  It's a question of precedent whether such
exploitation of hierarchy is feasible within the DB context.  I believe
we indeed have such precedents, maybe in the domain objects in the
reverse space, so i could live with such an approach.  However, this
isn't the only way to go and neither the only response to "good database
design".  That attitude sounds a bit overdone.

> One of the benefits of implementing this "role-type:" is that it is
> extendible beyond just abuse handling. You can define whatever role you
> need, abuse handling, csirt team, customer support, billing, sales, etc.
> To define any new role, say abuse handling, you add a new type 'abuse'.
> Optionally define a new "xxx-c:" attribute and which objects can include
> it. Then define a set of business rules to apply to this role.

Do we have any precedent to this and does it increase operational clarity
to have 'sub types' for db objects?  I'm not sure i understand the benefit
that would go beyond the current limited scope.

-Peter