<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px">Hi Gert<br><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555013"><span><br></span></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555048"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555149">I do listen to your one voice Gert. Now with Sebastian at least we have two voices. Unfortunately, the way this community works that is probably the only consensus we will get to move forward. It is by no means representative, but it is a consensus.</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555333" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555149"><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555334" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555149">cheers</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555335" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555149"><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555336" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555149">denis</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555356" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555149"><br></span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555357" dir="ltr"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555149">co-chair DB-WG</span></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555014" class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div style="display: block;" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555018" class="yahoo_quoted"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555017" style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555016" style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, Sans-Serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555015" dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Gert Doering via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian@karotte.org> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> db-wg@ripe.net<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, 21 April 2017, 13:59<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [db-wg] NWI-7 proposal for fixing "abuse-c:" problems<br> </font> </div> <div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1492103161136_555033" class="y_msg_container"><br>Hi,<br clear="none"><br clear="none">On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:47:37AM +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger via db-wg wrote:<br clear="none">> Denis wrote:<br clear="none">> > There is also a question over the double indirection to get to the<br clear="none">> > abuse contact information, ie resource object -> ORGANISATION object<br clear="none">> > -> ROLE object. <br clear="none"><br clear="none">I'm not sure how many times I've stated this in the past: this double<br clear="none">indirection looks great in computer science theory, but it annoys real<br clear="none">people enough to just not jump through these hoops - so "nothing is<br clear="none">done, because it is too annoying".<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I'm among this group. If I have to create (and maintain) an extra <br clear="none">organization: object just to be able to point a more-specific inetnum<br clear="none">to a different abuse-c: (or just add a more-specific abuse-mailbox:)<br clear="none">- then I'm just not going to do it.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Not sure what's so hard in *listening*, and then coming up with a <br clear="none">solution that takes the statements said into account, not "make a <br clear="none">beautiful database out of it" - to make this work, it needs to be easy<br clear="none">on people that *do* the work, not pretty on the back side.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">[..]<br clear="none">> I think it is a show stopper. You have to understand the logic and<br clear="none">> implement the tools. Many LIRs will shy away from that. Instead just<br clear="none">> adding an "abuse-c:" field to an object is easily understandable.<div class="yqt2739147384" id="yqtfd77057"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">This!<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> To sum it up, I don't think that this approach will make it easier to<br clear="none">> add and maintain abuse information in the database and as such will<br clear="none">> not improve the goal of having accurate and up-to-date abuse contact<br clear="none">> information. I would not support the proposal in this form.</div><br clear="none"><br clear="none">And this!<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Gert Doering<br clear="none"> -- NetMaster<br clear="none">-- <br clear="none">have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br clear="none"><br clear="none">SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard<br clear="none">Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br clear="none">D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br clear="none">Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>