[anti-abuse-wg] Re: 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)

Sorry for not replying in-thread, I don't have the correct email in
this account.

I whole-heartedly agree with 2010-08, though I still think abuse-c
would have been a better name. While the person object of an abuse-c
is not 100% appropriate for a group, itr expands to incident response
team.

What is an incident that needs to be reported to the itr? Spam, yes.
Cracking, yes. DoS, yes. But what de-announcing a prefix? That would
need to go to the NOC. admin-c would perfectly describe this
distinction. All that being said, what's done's done.

To get to the part where I stop babbling and give (hopefully) useful
feedback: I really like the proposal, but I think the English could be
improved. As it is, it reads a bit strained and is not 100% correct,
imo. As it is, the text can be interpreted to require an update of irt
on all updates of referencing objects which is obviously not Tobias'
intention.

Anyway, here goes:

---8<---

1. Compulsory IRT Object

A reference to an irt object is mandatory for the following RIPE
database objects: inetnum, inet6num, and aut-num.
All newly created and updated objects of these types must reference an
irt object.

The "abuse-mailbox" attribute is mandatory for all irt objects.

Addition of an "abuse-mailbox" attribute in a non-irt object will be rejected.

All "abuse-mailbox" attributes in non-irt objects will be deleted by
the end of 2012.

---8<---

As an aside, what happens when I update a non-irt object which has a
legacy abuse-mailbox attribute without touching it? Will this be
rejected or allowed? 2010-08 does not answer this question. which
should be fixed, imo.


Thanks, especially to Tobias,
Richard