[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal

leo vegoda wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2005, at 2:28 pm, Jørgen Hovland wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I apologise if this is moot, but an answer would really be  appreciated.
>> This becomes a problem with private users as it already is today.  We
>> can't store data about every single private user into a public 
>> database, and there might also be issues regarding the privacy act. 
>> It breaks the "true spirit of IPv6";  "have enough addresses, and  no
>> questions asked".
>
>
Can I ask a different question here? I have only seen the RIPE Whois
Database from the RIPE NCC side. I have never worked for an ISP/LIR so I
am not sure how you use all of the data contained in the Database.

Does anyone actually use the addresses and phone numbers from person
objects? Or is all communication done these days by e-mail?

The address and phone attributes are mandatory and e-mail is optional in
a person object. Is this the wrong way round for the way the data is
used today?

Just as a suggestion, perhaps address and phone details should only be
mandatory in organisation and role objects and optional in person
objects. Then you are more likely to be listing company information
rather than individual information. Perhaps this would be less of a
privacy issue.

regards
denis walker
Software Engineering Department
RIPE NCC

> Would there be any real value in registering private users in Whois? 
> How likely is it that the end user could provide assistance to 
> whoever contacted them?
>
> The registration for the network containing the IPv4 /32 on my home 
> ADSL connection shows my ISP's contact information. If I took an IPv6 
> service from them, I'd expect their contact information to be in 
> that, too.
>
> Regards,
>