[db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse

Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> 
> On 16 Feb 2005, at 17:39, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote:
> 
>> In my opinion this aproach is wrong. an inetnum or route does not have 
>> an email or even read emails. There is *someone* there handling abuse, 
>> who has an email (maybe designated for abuse) that is reading malis 
>> and hopefully doing something. What do I miss here.
> 
> 
> On 6 May 2004, at 11:39, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> 
>> 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.

This was what we thought the consensus was.

I think the history was:

- proposal to add "abuse-mailbox:" to INETNUM objects
- concern with this, suggestion to put in contacts
- concern that this was too hard, and confusing
- suggestion to do both

There seems to be a lot of concern with "abuse-mailbox:" in INETNUM and 
INET6NUM. Perhaps the easiest way forward is to exclude them at this time, 
and then add them later if problems persist?

-- 
Shane Kerr
RIPE NCC