[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] abuse-c + org / inetnum

On 7 Oct 2013, at 15:02, Gilles Massen wrote:

> In the light of the upcoming RIPE meeting I'd like to bring the problem
> of a single entity (organisation) wanting different abuse-c for
> different resources up again. The discussion starting in June
> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2013-June/004079.html )
> was rather open ended.
> 
> Apparently the only workable solution at this point is to create a
> duplicate organisation object with a different abuse-c.
> 
> Is data duplication really the solution that the WGs would like?

	I'm glad you've re-opened this question, Gilles, as I just
	last week had occasion to update an object which had long
	had multiple 'abuse-c' contacts, and had to choose which one
	to keep.

	I'm in the "No" camp wrt your question above.

	Back in the original "abuse-c" proposal [*],

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2004-January/002489.html

	there was provision for multiple "abuse-c" attributes,
	but this was not carried over into the current specification.

	Would "hint strings" be a way to go, or have you something
	else in mind, or are you just re-opening the question?


	ATB
	/Niall

    [*] Disclosure: I was a co-author. /N