[anti-abuse-wg] DRAFT: RIPE proposal - implementation of an

On 9 Apr 2010, at 20:43, Frank Gadegast , Dipl-Inform. Frank Gadegast wrote:
> - whois is showing IP ranges and ranges are often quite small, what means
>  that you have to look up each range, better each IP seperatly

Huh?



> 
> - whois has only a connection to the owner of the range and not to the
>  member, unless you do even more queries

What are you talking about?

If you do a lookup on an IP you can clearly see which AS number they belong to. You might need to do a second lookup on the AS number to get a bit more verbose information, but it's clearly there


> 
> - queries to personal objects are limited, what makes automated systems
>  impossible, if they are not starting to cache queries or read old
>  database dumps or have the special right to receive as many infos
>  as they need

Why do you need to query personal objects?

> 
> - caching query results are causing delays, what means that the abuse contacts
>  cant be correct all the time, because they could have changed already

Abuse contacts are unlikely to change that often. Sure, they may change, but they're not going to be changing on a regular basis.

> 
> - if the IRT object is introduced including abuse records, you will have
>  to look up the normal whois AND the IRT object, and what result will
>  you prefer, if both is available ?
> 
> and if you see it world-wide:
> - the formatting of the world wide whois systems is not equal and sometimes
>  even hard to parse, even if they nearly have the same fields
> - IPv4 ranges are widely spread between all RIRs, you will need to look
>  up arins whois first, to find out, where the range actually belongs to,
>  and then ask that RIR

No you don't.
You just do a whois lookup using a proper whois client and it will automatically handle the RIR side of things for you.

If you're having issues with this then your whois client is out of date.


> - dont forget the early registration blocks spread all over the world
> - arins whois requires up to three queries to finally get the abuse contact
>  hidden in several possible objects, multi-range listings with more than one
>  correct answer. What field will you really look for in arins whois ?

You're talking about a proposal for RIPE. Broadening it to other regions and any possible issues they may have isn't going to help RIPE much .. 


>  OrgTechHandle, OrgAbuseHandle, RAbuseEmail, OrgNOCEmail, OrgTechEmail ?
> - apnics whois is now spread along several other referral whois in different countries
>  and there is not clear and often changing relocation or change in the size
>  of the assigned blocks for those sub-RIRs
> - lacnic also spreads, brasil has its own whois
> - lacnic always includes the mains RIRs abuse contats, relevant ? yes, no, both ?
> - the objects changed-date is not visible on all whois worldwide
> - tools that should make this more easy (like jwhois for domainname) are
>  always developed with big delays and are never accurate
> 
> And many more problems, thats not what I understand as standarized ....
> 
> And if there is an RFC nearly for everything, its pretty weird,
> that whois is not equal all over the world.
> 
> (well, but the same with domain whois, at least the output format could
> be the same, even if every country will hide fields or not like its
> needed by local law or commitment)

What has domain whois got to do with anything?



> 
>> 
>> So, if I understand your proposal correctly, you want RIPE NCC membership fees to be used to create a system that will be used to 'name and shame' RIPE NCC members. I think this brings me back to the question I asked in my last message and which you did not answer: what is the incentive for RIPE NCC members to finance this system?
> 
> Yes, because the development and maintance cost are spread on all members,
> instead on only those, that are willing to do something, this would
> be one way to "punish" the others :o)


Which doesn't answer Leo's question at all.


> 
> And the system only has to be developed once.
> 
> And it will get even cheaper for everybody, if you add more functionality
> in the next steps ...
> 
> And no member that already receives and reads and works on abuse reports
> has to fear this system, that how it should be constructed.

If we're already handling our own abuse reports and paying our normal RIPE fees why on earth would we want our RIPE fees to increase?

Sorry, but you've completely lost me on this one.

Regards

Michele


Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845