[db-wg] Re: abuse-c: proposal

>not when you are using it as a reason to affect decisions in
>this discussion, i.e. allowing email addresses in abuse-c:
>
>randy

  Assuming that we build the abuse[xyz], I'd suggest to use abuse-c: if
  we want to use a pointer, i.e. a handle. This preserves DB conventions.


  From my point of view there is a pro and a con in allowing an email
  address directly in a dedicated attribute (whatever its name):

  - pro:
    . it saves a couple of lines in a robot script, and it gets
      displayed irrespective of the querying tool or path
    . but at the same time it would not support hierarchy or tree-walk
      towards the encompassing address block objects

  - con:
    . it runs against a concept we tried to adhere to in designing the
      schemas for objects:

	"don't try to put attributes into the same object, for
	 which the values will be maintained by different entities".

  Putting an email address directly into the "primary" objects would
  be such a case.

  The inet*num objects are the responsibility of the LIRs,
  maintaining (at least most specific) abuse contact information
  would be the responsibility of the end site (or direct up-stream
  connectivity provider).

  In many cases those are different entities.

  Wilfried.