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

On Feb 06, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:

 >operators, as we're paying the bills and supposedly ncc is
 >our service org.  and perhaps we should reward clue.
My requirements as an operator[1] are already fulfilled by irt objects,
can you explain better what are yours?

I think that the main flaw in these abuse-c/abuse-mailbox proposals is
that they require modifying every most specific inetnum/inetnum6 object,
while with irt I only need to add an attribute to the top level ones.

I also think that the proponents should explain more clearly which of
the various problems discussed each proposal is trying to solve.

I can't see which problem an abuse-c attribute referencing a role or
person object would solve that applying the -c flag by default to
inetnum/inetnum6 queries would not.


[1] of associating abuse contacts to IP addresses in a machine-parseable
    format.

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [4485 ribFnO50vJ3TY]