I do not agree there is a problem. Interested parties should add a notify to the objects in question and call it a day.
There was a proposal on the slides in the room (https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/148-NWI-1.pdf). I don't mind such an attribute, but strongly disagree that it should be required. if it was optional, I would have no objections. On 2016 May 13 (Fri) at 15:52:07 +0200 (+0200), Job Snijders wrote: :Dear WG, : :This is our first Numbered Work Item! We are now in phase 1. : :(You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html :to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.) : :The following preliminary problem statement has been put forth by Denis :& Piotr: : : "The resource holder could be unaware of changes made to the abuse : contact details for his/her resources. This could happen as a result : of any addition, change or deletion of any part of the abuse contact : details put in his/her ORGANISATION object ("abuse-c: attribute, : referenced ROLE object, "abuse-mailbox:" attribute)." : :I ask the working group whether they agree with this problem statement, :they can identify with the problem, whether the statement needs :amendments. : :Kind regards, : :Job : -- The identical is equal to itself, since it is different. -- Franco Spisani
