[acm-tf] suggestion

Hi,

> i believe we said that we would look at the desired properties of
> an "abuse contact" and then examine whether the IRT object is a close
> enough approximation to start from there and make modifications
> where necessary.  I would agree that the/an abuse contact object would
> be closer to IRT than to person or role, but what exactly is missing
> or carrying less than desired semantics is still to be found out.

Never the less I would present this idea to the community on Thursday.
Depending on the feedback and the feedback on the mailinglist afterwards
we can see if touching the IRT object in any way is a opportunity or a
no-go.

I want to avoid to come up with a policy proposal at RIPE 63 that is
technically "perfect" but can't find consensus due other reasons.

As far as I can remember the problem with 2010-08 was the mandatoryness
of the IRT object. There were only a few other imho minor objections.

> Therefore I believe that a "simple rename" would be premature as would
> circulating this idea to the wider community.  Please let's do the
> requirements first to get a reality check on those rather than on
> a proposed solution that we'd need to re-engineer for the problem.

I would not rename it at the moment. I would look for the feedback on
Thursday and the feedback until end of May on the ML. If there are no
major objections, we know that if we want to go the way of using the IRT
Object in whatever way we can do so. We can than start preparing for a
rename until RIPE 63, and come up with the complete proposal.

> We also need to address the alleged or real difference between incident
> response and abuse and whether that can or should be preserved once
> we're facing the public.

After bringing this idea, just as an idea to the community we know if
there are concerns about touching the IRT and more important which
concerns. I would not like to start a discussion about the difference
between Incident Response Teams and Abuse Teams, because in some cases
there might not even be a difference. Probably even some of the IRTs do
not see any difference anymore. And if there are concerns coming from
the community we could stop thinking about the "simple rename" and write
a proposal that creates a copy of the IRT, naming it abuse-c and develop
the needed object that way.

Thanks,

Tobias

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 267 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/acm-tf/attachments/20110504/9cf257bf/attachment.sig>