(this reply in mainly targeted towards the points Gert made) Hi, denis summarized my take on this pretty well here and we (me, denis, and I think William Sylvester too) had a brief chat about this at RIPE84 which in my view pretty much boiled down to: 1. email is the de-facto standard method of communication and is very reasonable to be required for contacts 2. any other method of contact should probably be optional/voluntary, this would include things like phone number, fax number, and probably postal address.
As denis also pointed out, if you want to operate a NOC that people can call into to fix issues urgently, that is fine, you can add that attribute then. Requiring phone numbers results in cases where someone might just write a phone number like +46000000000 or put in a personal phone number which might also be unsupported for NOC purposes. I can tell you that if you call the number listed for the tech contact for my network, I will either not pick up the phone or if I do I will likely just tell you to send an email instead. Clearly requiring networks like mine to put a phone number there just results in PII being published for no good reason. I would assume that many small networks do not operate NOCs that can respond to phone calls 24/7 or even phone calls at all, especially from non-customers. P.S. Yes all of these networks could just use role objects and as such not have to publish phone numbers but I argued for why they shouldn't be required as it seemed to me like Gert didn't quite understand why I think it is a bad idea to require them, beyond the inconsistency. -Cynthia On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:56 PM denis walker <ripede...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Gert, Cynthia > > On Wed, 25 May 2022 at 12:39, Gert Doering via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 12:22:53PM +0200, Cynthia Revström via db-wg wrote: > > > TL;DR: stop requiring the "phone" attribute for person objects. > > > > > > This is something that I quickly brought up during the db-wg session > > > at RIPE84 but thought would be good to bring up here as well. > > > > > > Currently you need to specify a phone number for person objects but > > > not for role objects, which I think should be fixed (as in not require > > > it for person objects either). > > > > I'm not sure I agree - as in "why is there a person/role object in > > the first place? -> so I know who to call in case things need an > > urgent resolution!". > > > > And, calling people needs phone numbers... > > And if they want you to call them, they will offer you an optional > phone number. Otherwise you can send them an email or fill in their > web form. If someone is operating a network and thinks it is important > for anyone to be able to contact them quickly if they detect a > problem, they will offer the means to do that, even if it is by using > optional data. If their network problems don't need 24/7 cover with > immediate problem solving they will respond to an email. > > > > > So, I agree that the inconsistency between person: and role: does not > > make much sense (I might see a role: object and want a phone number to > > call...) - but the more fundamental question is "if that object is of no > > use to a person looking for a point of contact, why have that object > > there in the first place?"... > > An email address or a URL is a point of contact. A natural person > working alone from home running a public network may not have the > capability to respond to problems with such urgency. So why would they > give you a phone number? Not all networks are equal - in size, > importance, staffing, operation... > > There is a fine balance between what a registry needs and what someone > is willing to give. If you cross the line, the database will be full > of rubbish. Then we have to consider verification on entry and regular > validation to ensure it is still correct. > > cheers > denis > proposal author > > > > > Gert Doering > > -- NetMaster > > -- > > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael > > Emmer > > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > > your subscription options, please visit: > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/db-wg
