2 questions

[Terry Chatfield]

    Some companies may have a primary and backup for each type of POC.

ginny listman wrote:

> Okay..
>
> >From what people are saying, I have come up with the following POC Types:
>
> Private (not displayed in whois): Billing, Membership and Administrative
> Public (displayed in whois): Technical, NOC and Abuse
>
> The next question is, is there a need to ever have more than one of any
> type of POC?
>
> Ginny
>
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Sanche, Greg wrote:
>
> >
> > I also agree and support the use of multiple POC's,
> > as mentioned below and include a Billing POC.
> >
> > The Abuse and NOC e-mail addresses and phone numbers should be public
> > knownledge and
> > the Administrator and billing contact info should be protected from the
> > general public.
> >
> > Greg Sanche
> > AT&T Canada Corp.
> > Tel:  905 361-6142  Fax:  905 361-6001
> > E-Mail  :  gsanche at attcanada.com
> >                Greg.Sanche at attcanada.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Darren Loher [mailto:dploher at level3.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 2:07 PM
> > To: David R Huberman
> > Cc: ginny listman; dbwg at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: 2 questions
> >
> >
> > I too would like the support for multiple POC's.  Particularly
> > one for Abuse and one for Security.
> >
> > -Darren Loher
> > Level 3 Communications
> > Global Data Architecture
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:02:24PM -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> > >
> > > > 1.  Right now a POC can have any number of phones and/or mailboxes.  Is
> > > > this necessary?  Can we delete all but one commercial phone, and all but
> > > > one primary mailbox?  Do we need to keep fax number?
> > >
> > > * The fax number doesn't seem particularly relevant in most cases, no.
> > >
> > > * If you want to only allow one commercial phone number and one e-mail
> > >   box, how about enhancing the database to allow multiple POC listings
> > >   on objects, ala RPSL? That allows providers, for example, to list
> > >   vanilla role accounts and list key techincal personal for, say, AS
> > >   registrations.
> > >
> > > > 2.  Right now both ASes and Networks have handles and names.  Ideally,
> > the
> > > > handle should be NET- or ASN- name.  We would like to do some clean-up
> > so
> > > > that all resources would be the same.  Get rid of an ASNBLK- or NETBLK-,
> > > > as well as NETBLK-NET- and the like.  Does anyone have a problem with
> > ARIN
> > > > possible changing your AS or Net handle/name?  Cathy Murphy will be
> > > > running a report to see how many people this will actually affect.
> > >
> > > * Are you talking about parent blocks only, or all registration objects?
> > >   I certainly like the idea of streamlining the database objects of
> > >   netname/handle for parent IP address objects and for AS registrations,
> > >   but changing any portion of downstream assignments has the potential
> > >   of creating havoc with many providers' SWIP scripts. Please clarify
> > >
> > > /david
> >
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Chat.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 471 bytes
Desc: Card for Terrence Chatfield
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/dbwg/attachments/20001221/5bfa05ea/attachment.vcf>