Subject: Re: Re: route objects in RPSL

From: Mark Prior <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 10:27:42 +0930

It certainly suits me. It would seem to me to be just asking for inconsistancy
if tech-c was required on route objects as it could conflict the value
associated with network object and just add to the confusion. If I was forced
to use it then I would be adding a generic role object (pointing at our
UCE abuse address) to deal with the problem rather than doing another
whois lookup to find the "correct" object or using my handle (I get enough
misdirected UCE abuse as it is).

Jerry, are you happy with this? I suspect IRRd is the only server to
actually implement the spec as it is written (as opposed to how we
read it :-).

Mark.

________________ Reply Header ________________
Subject:	Re: route objects in RPSL
Author:	<[email-masked]>
Date:		 Fri, 15 Oct 1999 20:33:48 +0930

Mark,

The spec says 3 things:
1) admin-c is optional, tech-c is mandatory for route objects 2) this is the ripe db behavior
3) rpsl spec is not authoritative over the contact information 

Obviously the spec is wrong about (2) as you brought out the tech-c issue. It seems like so many of us missed this.

Because spec says (2) and (3), we should fix (1) to be consistent with the ripe behavior. Because of (3), we can change this behavior today in our implementations and make the rpsl spec consistent when we edit it for DS.

Is this agreeable to everyone? 

Thanks.

Cengiz

-- 
Cengiz Alaettinoglu           Information Sciences Institute
http://www.isi.edu/~cengiz    University of Southern California