[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

Hi Gert

On 07/03/2016 13:42, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 06:06:04PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> wrote:
>> On 07-Mar-2016, at 6:03 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> - permit abuse-c: in inet(6)num: objects - permit abuse-c: to
>>> point to a normal person: object, not only role:
>>
>> [???]
>>
>> I???m actually +1 with these.  And in fact even with the current
>> spec there isn???t anything that says a person object can???t be
>> abuse-c

yes there is. It must be a ROLE object.

- though an outfit of any significant size might prefer to
>> add a role account just so that multiple people can receive and
>> handle abuse complaints.
>
> Yeah, for our LIR abuse contact, this totally makes sense - there is
> a department handling this (SPCA-RIPE), so the *option* of having a
> role: here is good.
>
> OTOH for my personal PI /24, the only abuse-c: ever will be me
> personally, so not being able to reference my person: object but
> having to create a role: for myself is a bit silly.

It is called standardisation. Although I am sure you will not believe me 
it does actually simplify the data model if you do things in a standard 
way :)

cheers
denis

>
> gert
>