<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <tt>Hi Piotr</tt> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/01/2017 09:33, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:20170114083308.GB32277@hydra.ck.polsl.pl" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:43:06PM +0000, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk">ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk</a> wrote: Denis, Colleagues, </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">It is currently not possible to specify alternative abuse contacts for different resources in the RIPE Database held by different parts of the same organisation. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Agree. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">It is currently not reasonably possible to specify alternative abuse contacts for resources in the RIPE Database assigned to organisations other than the parent organisation. In many circumstances these organisations are customers of the parent organisation. The lower organisation wishes to handle the abuse separate from the parent organisation. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Would you be so kind and elaborate more about "(...) not reasonably possible (...)". Do I understand correctly that putting proper ROLE object in abuse-c attribute of ORGANISATION object is beyond reasonable possibility?</pre> </blockquote> For a resource holder with an ORGANISATION object set up by the RIPE NCC, the default "abuse-c:" in that ORGANISATION object, referencing a ROLE object, should already exist now for all resources. Some people have expressed concern over the amount of work required to add abuse contacts for customers. It can be done by creating a new ROLE object and a new ORGANISATION object, referencing the ROLE and containing either the customer's organisation details or a copy of the resource holder's organisation details. Then reference this new ORGANISATION object in the customer's assignment object. For a handful of customers that is not difficult, although some still believe it is over complicated. If you have tens or hundreds of customers wanting to handle abuse complaints themselves, then it moves into the 'unreasonable' zone if all this has to be handled manually. If it is considered unreasonable and it is optional, then people won't do it and we don't have the best information available in the RIPE Database. I don't want to start discussing solutions yet. Lets make sure we all agree what is a problem and that we have all the problems listed. We don't want to have to fix it twice. cheers denis <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> co-chair DB-WG <blockquote cite="mid:20170114083308.GB32277@hydra.ck.polsl.pl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">After the introduction of "abuse-c", the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute in the PERSON, MNTNER, ORGANISATION and IRT objects was intended to be deprecated. This cleanup was never done and the old data causes confusion to users manually searching the database. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Agree. Piotr </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>