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

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 03:26:23PM +0100, Tobias Knecht wrote:

Hi Tobias

> But nevertheless:
> 
> Is there any other concern or positive feedback about making the IRT
> Object mandatory?
> 
> Is there any other concern or positive feedback using the IRT Object?
> 
> Are there any other concerns or positive feedback?
> 
> Are there any other questions or suggestions?

Yes.

Why not introduce mandatory abuse-mailbox field into inet(6)num and aut-num?

- This meet the need for single place for abuse contact information.
- The inet(6)num and aut-num has no whois server query restrictions.
- The inet(6)num and aut-num are already existing. Syntax change would
  be probably easy to implement for RIPE NCC.
- The non-mandatory IRT object could still be used for mature, well
  established IRT teams.
- Reduced resource consumption: there will be no extra objects in DB (we
  save some disk space) and there will be no extra references (we save
  some whois servers' processors time). Both means: we save some money. :)
- IRT object still can be used as it is used right now (if LIR want's to
  monitor abuse, even if the inet(6)num or aut-num is handled by its
  customer)

This is of course not connected with leaving or not abuse-mailbox in
person/role/organisation object types.

Piotr

-- 
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl