[db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse

Havard Eidnes wrote:
>>>My view. It is valid to add the abuse mailbox to objects that describe 
>>>Prrsons or Groups of them (person:, role:, organisation:), but to 
>>>implement a reference to them for objects that describe ressources 
>>>(inetnum, inet6num, route, ....). 'abuse-c:' for example.
>>
>>Agreed. Note that this "reference" is irt-mnt. It's annoying that
>>requests to have IRT records returned by default have been ignored. I do
>>not remember anybody arguing against this, and without this IRT records
>>are just dead.
> 
> 
> Seconded.
> 
> Why was this request ignored?

We did note the request, but did not feel that there was any consensus for 
this on either the mailing list or at the RIPE meeting. I think it did not 
appear in the minutes as an agreed action.

We *did* propose IRT objects appear when the "-c" switch is used, or when 
the new "-b" switch is used, since in these cases users know what they are 
doing (hopefully).


There were two ideas that we discussed when trying to firm up the propsal:

1. Return IRT for all queries, when present as an "mnt-irt:".

This one should not be too controversial, I think. Unless somebody opposes 
this, the proposal can be updated accordingly.

2. Make "-c" the default.

I like this one myself, but I can see why there were objections to it. I 
like it because it lets network administrators insure that abuse complaints 
go to the right place in the hierarchy, and does not prevent users from 
seeing the entire view of the database if they want. (I think this gives 
most of the benefits of APNIC's use of "hidden" assignments without the 
drawbacks.)

But it could be confusing for some users.


Can we get some feedback on these two ideas here?

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC