[anti-abuse-wg] Proposal for technical details for abuse contact information in the RIPE Database

Hi,

> Dont forget that the abuse-mailbox is mandatory, the new
> abuce-c isnt (and its also hierachically).

Don't forget hierarchy. If X.0.0.0/8 has an abuse-c all ips in this
range are covered. If somebody wants to handle his own abuse he can add
an abuse-c as well. If the maintainer of X.0.0.0/8 does not want to be
responsible he has to ask his customers to publish an abuse-c.

This should cover your thoughts.

> When automatic parsing is needed, your need to query
> several objects including IRT, remarks, abuse-mailbox (what
> is usally not present for networks that ARE spamming
> a lot) and finally personal objects to find at least
> one email address you could send an abuse report too.

This is exactly what should not happen in future, because the Abuse
Finder API will give you the exact information you requested. If you use
whois, you should use the -b option which returns only the abuse-mailbox
attribute of the abuse-c. In the transitionphase this result will come
up first and the other "old" results will come up if the first result is
not possible to find. Later on there is only the mailbox attribute
coming from an abuse-c.

> And personal objects ARE restricted, what compicates
> things a lot.

As well this should not happen any more. Before sending the report to a
personal address you should use hierarchy and go up one level and report
things to this level. They can take care in whatever way they find it
would be appropriate.

> Ok, so lets restrict access to personal objects even more
> and lets have a non mandatory and public abuse-c without any
> restriction.

I do not get the point why data other than abuse-mailbox would be needed
in an unrestricted way.

The abuse-c will be mandatory for at least the highest allocation, which
gives you an abuse-mailbox attribute for every single ip address. So why
would we need an unrestricted email-attribute, phone number, street and
name of the object?

> And I still like the idea of an "preferred contact method"
> field, so we can decide what format to use automatically.

There is a project working on this as a DNS based service in the IETF
ARF Working Group.

I'm absolutely against defining formats in the whois database. I could
accept channels as soon as there are other channels finding their way in
the everydays life of an abuse department. Putting formats into the
whois things get polluted with stuff that has nothing to do in the
whois. And second keeping this up2date is a pain. An abuse department
does probably not want to get on NOCs people nerves and requests updates
every once in a while.


Thanks,

Tobias

-- 
abusix

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20111201/5618d7f1/attachment.sig>