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

Thank you for your feedback.

> 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.

We had the the idea of an abuse-c as well, but we decided to stay with
the IRT object and not create another object again. This makes the
implementation process easier for RIPE NCC. If you create a abuse-c and
link any object to it, you can have different persons in one whois with
different abuse-mailbox attributes.

And the other intention was, in our opinion, the abuse contact should be
related to the inet(6)num and aut-nums. And the IRT Objects shows this
relation better than an abuse-c that is linked to a person, org or role
account.


> 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.

Hmmm but this might be a good idea and could improve data accuracy. But
there will be another proposal in the next days facing this. ;-)

> ---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<---

Sounds good for me.

> 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.

That is a good point. I would not touch it. Leave it. It will be deleted
at latest in 2012 and it makes no sense to reject working abuse
contacts. But you are right. This should be mentioned.

Thanks for your feedback

Tobias




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20101108/bc3fdebc/attachment.sig>