This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ncc-services-wg@ripe.net/
[ncc-services-wg] Feature request
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Feature request
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Feature request
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Max Tulyev
president at ukraine.su
Fri Sep 16 17:13:03 CEST 2005
> > But there is an agreement between us, and sometimes (due to payment > > problems, violating the agreement, spam, etc.) I need to suspend or even > > remove objects. > ...which means that you want to/have to keep responsibility to maintain the > data in the repository, right? Not right. User is keeping responsibility to maintain the data, so their mnt-by is in the objects. My aim is (at least) to bill user, and it can be done different ways (once, yearly, quarterly, by crediting user for sometime, whatever). And I need the mechanism to let that user have to pay ;) (and not to violate agreements by other ways) and remove objects if it doesn't - but NOT to keep information up to date in RIPE DB. > I don't understand this assertion, as long as there is a contractual > relationship with your LIR, there is no "alien maintainer". Please keep in > mind that an LIR is NOT required to provide PI assignment services. So if > those "customers" don't like your set of rules, they are free to find > another LIR which offers what they want. Ok, but if I want to be more user friendly than others? Or if I bored with making updates of my users' objects? > What you definitely _can_ do is add an _additional_ maintainer for your > user. Then having any credential as listed in _any_ of the maintainers > allows access. Evaluation of the auth: tags is done according to a LOGICAL > OR policy. From the beginning I said about "bad guys". If user really one - he just sends an update to remove my mntner - and I loose control on object completly. > Not to my knowledge. I think I suggested that before - in case you deploy > the multiple maintainer approch, you probably should enable the > notification mechanism(s) [in your maintainer] to each time get an alert > when your customer happens to change registration data. But notification comes a bit later, isn't it? ;) > And you may want to include an explicit provision in your contract that > prevents your customer from removing the link to _your_ maintainer object. If all users always do what is written in the contract - there was no deal about all of that at all. -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Feature request
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Feature request
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]