[db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Thu Jan 29 14:52:17 CET 2004
On 29 Jan 2004, at 14:34, Ulrich Kiermayr wrote: > 1. Role lacks of the two pgp-attributes. > Might it be worth to put them as optional into that templates? > [I'd say probably yes, because it might be useful in other > situations > as well] I'ld agree. Safety options should always be available. > 2. Protection against 'illegal' referecing. (Meaning "Hey UCD has a > nice > role for abuse, i reference this role in my inetnums as well") There > we had a discussion in the context of the org object, putting a > generalized machinery (mnt-ref, ref-nfy) in place. IMHO this > _should_ > be added (optional) to role/person anyway. Do we need a new machinery for this? If a role or person object acquires a new inverse-key relationship, I would find it reasonable to alert the 'mnt-by:' and 'notify:' targets as a matter of course. I don't see the value in defining new attributes just to cover this. > 3. The -c flag: This could be incorporated with the irt as well. Or in > a > even more generalized way have a "whois -c abuse-c 131.130.7.44" > returning the most specific inetnum containing an abuse-c, and maybe > if useful extending the semantics to other attributes if useful. I like "whois -c abuse-c 131.130.7.44". > If those three things are incorporated, abuse-c has all the features > irt has, except for the creation policy. But this is up to discussion > anyway. > > I hope I make some sense here I think so. > lG uk MfG NO8
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]