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

Tobias Knecht wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Tobias,

>> 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.

Thats a big point FOR the proposal.
It will force the maintainer of the /8 to force his customers to migrate
to the new abuce-c pretty quick.

> 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.

Just what I meant, it will be perfect.
One API or whois call or visit to the abuse finder tool to find the
reponsible abuse email address, automatic or not, it simply will work
for every complaint.

>> 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.

We regulary climb that latter and often end up at hostmaster at ripe.net
or bitbucket at ripe.net (or similar at the other RIRs) after making lots
of unneeded queries :o(
abuce-c will be much better than the confusion that we have right now
(I even saw whois output with a different abuse-mailbox email that was
  mentioned in the remarks ;o)

>> 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.

That not what I meant, we will be happy, if the abuce-c is in place
and its abuse-mailbox field queries will be unrestricted.

> 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

I know, thats why I support this proposal 100%

+1

> 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.

Ok, can see that one too ... was just an idea that will help our daily 
work ...


Kind regards, Frank
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tobias
>

--
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