[db-wg] (no subject)

On Feb 09, Christian Rasmussen <chr at jay.net> wrote:

 >>   Tagging the _allocation_ object of an LIR would cover _all_ the
 >>   _assignment_ objects in that block. With the added benefit that you can
 >>   still have a "more specific" or 1st-line pointer in an assignment
 >>   object.
 >
 >I wasn't aware of this, is it explained in ripe-254?

With a quick look I've found it explained at least in section 7:

  The new query functionality allows searching for an inetnum object that
  contains the reference to an irt object representing CSIRT responsible
  for a given address or address range. It is implemented with a new '-c'
  flag that modifies the behaviour of a normal ip lookup, so that the
  Database will return the smallest less specific inetnum (inet6num)
  object containing the reference to an irt object.


 >>In many cases such incidents are handled by CSIRTs whose contacts are
 >>different from those listed in "admin-c:" and "tech-c:" attributes.
 >
 >That is my problem, this object is designed for making it possible to
 >outsource handling of abuse. Its not a problem that the object has this
No, it's not. It's made for sites which are not Joe's ISP and Grill,
where the abuse desk is a different team from the one which manages
routing.

 >Can you acknowledge that by making these features mandatory you put
 >unnecessary work on LIRs not outsourcing abuse handling? In reality this
Not really.

 >means several of these will probably decide not to take the time to create
 >these objects (as we know very few has been created).
I think the fault was in bad documentation, not in complexity of
deployment.

-- 
ciao, |
Marco | [4527 l'3KkkSJYlL.M]