2 questions

[ginny listman]

If this seems redundant, I just want to make sure I understand it
correctly.  This is critical before we start seriously developing.  So you
want backup POCs of the same function, ie all Technical or Administrative,
and would be the POC for the same NetBlock.  Therefore, we need to build
in the ability to have many technical contacts, many abuse contacts, ...

As far as designing the template to handle this, it would sort of look
like this:

Network:
other network fields:

# Contact Information
Contact Type...........:
Add, Modify or Delete..:
Name...................:
Address................:
Phone..................:
Mailbox................:
# Another Contact
...

Of course it will be a whole lot prettier :->
Anyway, if we allow the ability to have multiple POCs of the various POC
types, it will require an "Action" type for each POC.  Otherwise, the POC
list would continue to grow.

Ginny

On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Sanche, Greg wrote:

> 
> Ginny ( ARIN )
> 
> Within a Large company or organization, there are varies divisions which use
> Registered IP's in
> there services ( not only their ISP's division ). Therefore a need for more
> than one POC within an
> organization.
> 
> 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: ginny listman [mailto:ginny at arin.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2000 2:50 PM
> To: Sanche, Greg
> Cc: 'Darren Loher'; David R Huberman; dbwg at arin.net
> Subject: RE: 2 questions
> 
> 
> 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
> > 
>