[DBWG] person without email... and domain object size

[Frank Habicht]

I forgot to mention that there are a total of 9 reverse-DNS delegations
for /128 prefixes.

the 2nd one I checked was not lame.
didn't check more.


domain:
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0.0.f.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa
domain:
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.f.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa
domain:
b.3.3.0.f.4.e.f.f.f.3.4.3.c.4.9.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.2.8.e.4.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa
domain:
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.3.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
domain:
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.2.a.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa
domain:
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.8.2.a.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa
domain:
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.8.b.2.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa
domain:
0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.8.f.3.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa
domain:
0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.d.6.f.f.0.c.2.ip6.arpa


PS: that's from an FTP database from August 20th.

Frank


On 06/09/2020 21:22, Frank Habicht wrote:

> Hi AfriNIC staff,

> 

> since when is the 'e-mail:' attribute for 'person' objects mandatory?

> 

> I just found

> nic-hdl:        SE1-AFRINIC

> that does not have an email.

> 

> It's got a GENERATED maintainer, and I'm also wondering how these new

> maintainer credentials were communicated to the "person".

> 

> Yes, I don't want to rely on 'changed:' attributes.

> 

> Staff:

> How many 'person' objects don't have an 'e-mail:' attribute ?

> 

> 

> [slowly getting to another issue....]

> 

> Why did I get to check this person object at all....?

> 

> Because in a domain object it is

> tech-c:         SE1-AFRINIC

> zone-c:         SE1-AFRINIC

> 

> 

> Also, the domain object is since "2020-02-02 02:02"

> ( nice time stamp!! ;-) ) marked as all 'nserver' being *lame*.

> So when is it meant to get deleted?

> I hope we're not waiting for the tech-c or zone-c to respond to the

> email, which we could not send, because the 'person' doesn't have an

> email address?

> 

> But what really got me to check the domain object:

> 

> domain:

> 0.1.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.8.f.3.4.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa

> 

> yes, it's a bit long. a reverse DNS delegation for a /128

> 

> This is probably "legal".

> But:

> a) if disputable 'usefulness', and

> b) I see "tremendous' potential for growth in the DB - in a bad way

> 

> 

> All, Staff and WG:

> 

> should creation of domain objects be limited to certain prefix sizes?

> 

> 

> Thanks,

> Frank

> 

> _______________________________________________

> DBWG mailing list

> DBWG at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg

>