[db-wg] Proposal: Abuse-C as a Reference

Hello,

On 6 May 2004, at 09:25, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote:

> Hello,
>
> To put together a Proposal for how a Referece solution could be done .

See comments below.

> This abuse-c inherits all the features of irt as well, resulting in 
> just one object for this area [Like in tech-c which is also not 
> fine-grained like having something for routing, something for 
> hardware, for peering, for .....]

Yes and no.  Not where I think we should focus our thinking just now.

> What can be done to have the 'abuse-mailbox' like in Randy/niall's 
> proposal would be the Role/Person object:
>
> This would also make it easier to reference existing data, i.e. the 
> one Person NOC where the local guru is admin and tech and abuse.

Yes; exploit, leverage, take advantage of [...] what we already have.

IMHO, a new "reference solution" involves excessive effort for both 
development
and deployment.

We already have reference attributes:
	admin-c => person/role/org
	tech-c => person/role/org
	mnt-irt => irt

Adding a new reference attribute requires modification of primary 
objects
(inet*num, AS-whatever-the -object-is called).  If a parallel reference 
is
already in place, I don't see that this gives us a useful return on 
effort.
Since all primary objects of interest must already have a tech-c 
reference,
we should better say "Because" than "If".

I thought we had all agreed we should avoid modifying primary objects 
except
_in extremis_.  An optional distinguished attribute allows the choice 
(of what to
modify) be made by whoever is responsible for doing the work. I'm very 
much in
favour of co-locating decision-making with the effort to which the 
decision gives
rise.  Making the _same_ distinguished attribute available in both 
primary
(inet*num, AS) and secondary (reference-targets: person, role, org, 
irt) objects
gives the widest scope for maintainers to do what is _convenient for 
them_ whilst
retaining overall consistency.

NCC can (and, if I've understood correctly what was said this morning, 
will)
advise on the development effort needed for whatever we finally agree 
on.

Complementary to that, we (for some value of "we") have to devise a 
least-effort,
greatest-effect strategy for reaching "there" from "here".  I keep 
feeling we're
still looking at tactics.

More in follow-up.

ATB,

Niall