[db-wg] irt object useless

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 12:07:23PM +0200, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Andre Koopal wrote:
> 
> >Last week we updated all our allocations with an IRT object.
> >
> >However, this ended out to be quite useless as the IRT object isn't shown
> >in a default query, which 99% of joe-user will do, they don't know to
> >specify -c.
> >
> >Another problem I noticed is that the irt-nfy isn't suppressed if you do
> >specify -c.
> >
> >So I want to propose to show the IRT object in a default query and to also
> >hide the irt-nfy attribute in that default query.
> >  
> >
> I definately think that the "irt-nfy:" attribute should be hidden - this
> was basically an oversight with the abuse change proposal on my side.
> The "upd-to:" and "mnt-nfy:" should also be filtered.
> 
> 
> As for the "-c" flag, I would propose that the default behaviour should be:
> 
> 1. Perform a lookup that works the same as "-c" today, and if it would
> return some INETNUM objects, then finish (returning IRT objects as today)
> 
> 2. If no INETNUM objects would be found, fall back to the current behaviour
> 
> We could have the "-c" flag change its meaning, to give you the query
> without consideration for the "mnt-irt:" attribute, just like today.
> 
> 
> APNIC has a model where members can hide information about their
> assignments:
> 
> http://www.apnic.net/news/2004/0930.html
> 
> By implementing the "-c" change above, the maintainer managing the Whois
> database records int the RIPE Database could decide which block users
> would get back on a query. I think that this would give the benefits of
> the APNIC approach (for me, getting users to the "best" person to help
> them with their problems), without what I consider a drawback of the
> APNIC approach (there is "secret" data in the database).
> 
> 
> A futher suggestion that Wilfried (I think) mentioned to me, was to add
> "mnt-irt:" to the AUT-NUM object type.
> 
As I don't see any more comments on this, have we already reached consensus?

Wilfried: how to best proceed with this? If there is hardly any discussion
about this, it seems silly to wait for a RIPE meeting on this.

Regards,

Andre Koopal
MCI