[db-wg] abuse-c: proposal

On 29 Jan 2004, at 14:34, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote:

> 1. Role lacks of the two pgp-attributes.
>    Might it be worth to put them as optional into that templates?
>    [I'd say probably yes, because it might be useful in other 
> situations
>     as well]

I'ld agree.  Safety options should always be available.

> 2. Protection against 'illegal' referecing. (Meaning "Hey UCD has a 
> nice
>    role for abuse, i reference this role in my inetnums as well") There
>    we had a discussion in the context of the org object, putting a
>    generalized machinery (mnt-ref, ref-nfy) in place. IMHO this 
> _should_
>    be added (optional) to role/person anyway.

Do we need a new machinery for this?  If a role or person object 
acquires
a new inverse-key relationship, I would find it reasonable to alert the
'mnt-by:' and 'notify:' targets as a matter of course.  I don't see the
value in defining new attributes just to cover this.

> 3. The -c flag: This could be incorporated with the irt as well. Or in 
> a
>    even more generalized way have a "whois -c abuse-c 131.130.7.44"
>    returning the most specific inetnum containing an abuse-c, and maybe
>    if useful extending the semantics to other attributes if useful.

I like "whois -c abuse-c 131.130.7.44".

> If those three things are incorporated, abuse-c has all the features 
> irt has, except for the creation policy. But this is up to discussion 
> anyway.
>
> I hope I make some sense here

I think so.

> lG uk
MfG NO8