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

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:14:50PM +0100, Frank Gadegast wrote:

Hi

>> 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.

What I was thinking about was that I'm affraid that a lot of LIRs will
make a lot (with scripts, basing on current admin-c,tech-c) of IRT
objects for its customers. This will consume 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 ...

Adding mandatory abuse-mailbox is as easy as that.

>> - 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.

Don't think so.

> 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)

This is happening now. :D

You should definately read things more carefull. This is a part of
current "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource
Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region."

Piotr

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