request forwarding, was: Special ftp access for IRR?

Daniel,

> From dfk at ripe.net Thu Mar  2 04:01:21 1995
> To: cengiz at isi.edu (Cengiz Alaettinoglu)
> Cc: bmanning at isi.edu, rr-impl at ripe.net
> Subject: request forwarding, was: Special ftp access for IRR? 
> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 10:00:40 +0100
> 
> 
>   > cengiz at ISI.EDU (Cengiz Alaettinoglu) writes:
>   > 
>   > Daniel Karrenberg (Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net) on March  1:
>   > >   > However, if
>   > >   > radb gets a request from AS1 to update the copy in ripe.db, it should
>   > >   > 1) forward it to ripe for processing 
>   > >   > 2) return the user a message to submit the request to ripe.
>   > >   > 
>   > >   > I think we should do 2.
>   > > 
>   > > Why this?  I am curious!
>   > 
>   > I think AS1 made a mistake and there is no easy way to guess AS1's
>   > intentions, other than to ask AS1. That is it may be the case that the
>   > source line was the mistake as opposed to the registry to which the
>   > update was sent.
> 
> My argument is that the object itself is more likely to represent
> the intention than the address it is sent to. After years we still get
> people sending requests intended to the automatic mailbox to the manual
> one. 
> 
> Taking both into account I think the right thing is "forward 
> with notification".

On the other hand, if you had chosen "reject with instructions for
submitting it correctly" you probably wouldn't be getting requests 
intended to the automatic mailbox sent to the manual one even after
years have passed.

I don't have a strong opinion on which we choose for the IRR (it isn't
even obvious that the different registries need to do this the same),
but we have had good success with few gripes by using the stronger
method when we reject NACRs.

--Dale




-------- Logged at  Thu Mar 2 16:19:55 MET 1995  ---------