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

Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:

>> 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.

Hm, but disk space is not really a resource these days.
More important is the speed and consistency of the database,
and with that, links are much better ...

>> 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.

Sure, but when it equal, I would choose IRT, because of the other reasons.

>>> - 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.

Multiple please have to be confusing.
The aim is the "single place".

Multiple place are also a problem for typos ...

>> 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."

Cannot find any difference for that point in your proposal.
Your proposal says nothing about the introduction of an mandatory
abuse-mailbox-field into INETNUM objects.
Its just about the link to the sponsoring LIR or RIPE, what helps
nothing to remove resources without a working contact.

Your "pro" is:
   Another point of contact is known in case of any abuse.

I bet there are LIRs that have no valid abuse contact either.
And it does not help a lot to send abuse reports to RIPE NCC
(maybe only to prove that the End User or LIR have no valid
  abuse contact).

Please make that point more clear.



>
> Piotr
>

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

-- 

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
--
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