This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hank Nussbacher
hank at efes.iucc.ac.il
Thu Oct 6 06:45:14 CEST 2005
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Denis Walker wrote: Yes, we (il.isoc) use it occasionally. When we are revoking a customer's ASN or IP range due to any number of reasons (failure to be multihomed, for example), we will try email. If that fails we try calling up the phone number on record. If that fails, we send registered snail mail to the address on record. Therefore, I do see value in retaining those fields. -Hank > 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?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 New Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]