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

Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:

>>>> Im happy when we change the inetnum to have an mandatory abuse-mailbox-field,
>>>> but thats nearly the same than the IRT-object.
>>>
>>> Exept we will save some time and resources.
>>
>> Really ?
>> You cannot convert personal abuse-mail-fields to the inetnum automatically,
>> this would be unlogical, because the intention of the LIR
>> could have been different.
>>
>> So, all LIRs will have the same work with an INETNUM-abuse-field
>> then with an IRT object.
>>
>> And then I like IRT better, because its intention was to take care
>> of abuse anyway, and you need to change only ONE (or a couple)
>> of IRT objects, when things changing ...
>
> One more time - some pros from the original email:
>
> - 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. :)

Not at all.
Modern databases will use less resources when referencing objects
from other tables instead of copying information to many other objects.
Using the IRT object will save resources.

Furthermore: the definition of the IRT object does not to be changed.
Simply that the abuse-field is mandatory in the future, and that a link
to all INETNUM objects to an IRT object is required.
Sounds pretty easy to implement ...

> - 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)

That will be confusing for everybody.
What we want to achieve is a single place for the abuse contact, instead
of spreading it in remarks, abuse-mailbox-fields in personal or INETNUM
objects.

Thats why a mandatory IRT object is the better solution to my opinion.

>
>>>> I personally simply want a mandatory abuse email address I can query without limitations,
>>>> whatever way this is achieved, I will like it.
>>>
>>> As Tobias said - we all agree about "single point of abuse contact
>>> information". What community disagree is this idea about IRT.
>>
>> Dont think that the community dont like IRT, looks to me more that
>> they prever it, instead of in INETNUM.
>
> I don't agree with that point of view.

Maybe some mails from others should make that clear.
What does everybody like more ?

IRT ?
INETNUM ?

>> Inserting it in INETNUM is no single point.
>
> It is single for this inetnum. It is not single for you. That's true.
>
>> When I like to change our abuse at powerweb.de to lets say
>> complain at powerweb.de, I will have to change ALL INETNUM objects.
>> I would not like that ...
>
> Good point - why not to mail it on the mailing list as a response to my
> email?

Just did.

> But, I still believe this could be done relatively easy with simple
> script.

Yep, I thought that also for the needed updates with the IRT object, big
LIRs should be able to insert the link and remove their remarks
and other abuse-mailbox-fields pretty easily.

But inserting the abuse email into the INETNUM object would mean, that
nearly every small LIR also has to do scripting, it might be easier for
the majority of the members to change their old objects once and then
have a single IRT object for the future ...


BTW: I have no opinion for you proposal under
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html
yet, but find the following really interesting:

"A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE 
NCC if the resource holder cannot be contacted".

Im having hopes, if we put that together with Tobias'
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-09.html

(BIG SMILE)


Kind regards, Frank
--
PHADE Software - PowerWeb                       http://www.powerweb.de
Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast             mailto:frank at powerweb.de
Schinkelstrasse 17                                fon: +49 33200 52920
14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany             fax: +49 33200 52921
======================================================================
Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de