ARIN Conversion: Template Instructions Now Available

[Dawn Martin]

Hey Scott,

It is not the set-up of the role accounts but a copy of every SWIP/netmod
template
being sent to everyone on the list every time something is sent out or
received. At
that point I'm sure people would just start ignoring it and deleting those
emails 
assuming it was for someone else. It would make it difficult for the sender
to 
ensure that their SWIP was actually processed. 

I agree though that we are all saying the same thing about at least having
one contact,
I just want some of the contact information that I provide to ARIN to be for
their eyes
only.

Dawn 


-----Original Message-----
From: Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Scott.Whipple at cox.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:31 AM
To: dawn.martin at wcom.com
Cc: dbwg at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Conversion: Template Instructions Now Available


Dawn,

 I think if you used my last proposal you can accomplish what you're looking
for.  The Admin and org tech would never be seen as long as you had an
abuse/noc contact on your org ID.  If you don't want all your engineers to
be listed you can set up an additional org tech that's a role account for
all your engineers or you can list them all out as individuals now that
there is no limit for the amount of POC's.  The point is they would never be
seen as long as you have an abuse/noc contact.  If you're worried about
having all your employees listed on resources just set up a role account
that they all have access to or a few different role accounts giving access
to who you want for what you want.  This will still give them the ability to
add or delete reassignments.  I think the 3 of us are saying basically the
same thing.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Dawn Martin [mailto:dawn.martin at wcom.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 1:42 PM
To: Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta)
Cc: dbwg at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Conversion: Template Instructions Now Available


I have two thoughts here:

1) The Org records should have at least 1 contact. Why can't the Org decide
which &
   who that contact should be. If the other information we provide is
proprietary,
   why can't the company decide that. ARIN can keep some information
private, that
   could be the folks that are allowed to SWIP and the folks that are
allowed to 
   request IPs and change the org information (org. techs & admin techs). I
think 
   Lee already voiced my opinion in this, that I don't want my name or the
name of
   several hundred employees listed on all of our resources. For one it
would make for
   a really long lookup.

2) I would really like to see some sample WHOIS outputs. It if very
difficult to decide
   who is going to be where without some samples. I'm just going around in
circle's 
   guessing what is going to be put on each record.

Dawn Martin
WorldCom IP Planning & Policy Analyst
dawn.martin at wcom.com
(703)886-4746


-----Original Message-----
From: Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta) [mailto:Scott.Whipple at cox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 3:53 PM
To: ginny listman; Dawn Martin
Cc: dbwg at arin.net; lee.howard at wcom.com
Subject: RE: ARIN Conversion: Template Instructions Now Available


Yes that is what I'm suggesting.  I'm also willing to go a little farther on
the Org query and lean toward what Lee said.  Eliminate the the Admin from
ever showing up in a whois query.  I don't think we can eliminate the Org
techs from showing up unless there is an abuse/noc contact, and from what I
think I remember abuse/noc contacts are not required to complete an Org
template but the Org tech is required.  Because we have to have some
contacts showing up for our resources if a company doesn't create an
abuse/noc POC we have to list at least the Org Tech contacts.  These are my
new compromised suggestions.

Query 1: An Org
Response 1: Only includes abuse or noc contacts unless no abuse/noc contacts
are listed, then org techs are listed.

Query 2: A resouce that has POCs associated with it
Response 2: Display only the resource POCs

Query 3A: A resource that does not have POCs associated with it, and the
Org has Abuse and/or NOC contacts
Response 3A: Display the Org Abuse and/or NOC

Query 3B: A resource that does not have POCs associated with it, and the
Org does not have Abuse and/or NOC
Response 3B: Display the Org Techs

Scott


-----Original Message-----
From: ginny listman [mailto:ginny at arin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:29 PM
To: Dawn Martin
Cc: Whipple, Scott (CCI-Atlanta); dbwg at arin.net
Subject: RE: ARIN Conversion: Template Instructions Now Available


Dawn,

My understanding of what Scott is proposing:

Query 1: An Org
Response 1: ALL POCs associated with the Org. This would include the
Administrative contact, as well as the multiple Technical contacts. Most
people will not be querying Orgs, but rather the actual resource.

Query 2: A resouce that has POCs associated with it
Response 2: Display only the resource POCs

Query 3: A resource that does NOT have POCs associated with it
Response 3: Display the Orgs Tech, NOC and Abuse contacts

Is this right, Scott?

I would go a step further and suggest that query 3 be broken into the
following:

Query 3A: A resource that does not have POCs associated with it, and the
Org has Abuse and/or NOC contacts
Response 3A: Display the Org Abuse and/or NOC

Query 3B: A resource that does not have POCs associated with it, and the
Org does not have Abuse and/or NOC
Response 3B: Display the Org Techs


Ginny

On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Dawn Martin wrote:

> Scott,
>
> Are you saying that on any given record the organization would have to
have
> at least 1 contact. If the organization decided to put additional POC's on
> the record the org. could decide not to have the admin listed on the
record?
>
> If so, then the Admin contact could only be pulled up using a specific
WHOIS
> query?
> Something like: whois -h whois.arin.net admin 157.130.0.0
>
> That would be fine with me, I think I have said before that if it was a
> separate
> entry that could be pulled up by savvy WHOIS folks it would be better.
>
> Dawn Martin
> WorldCom IP Planning & Policy Analyst
> dawn.martin at wcom.com
> (703)886-4746
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/dbwg/attachments/20020717/ce3381f1/attachment.bin>