[anti-abuse-wg] Discussion on 2011-06

Thanks Denis for this clarification.

Tobias

On 25.06.12 16:15, Denis Walker wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Here is some background information to provide an insight into the
> reasoning behind the impact analysis and proposed implementation plan
> made by the RIPE NCC for policy proposal 2011-06.
> 
> The RIPE NCC attended the meetings of the RIPE Abuse Contact Management
> Task Force (ACM TF) to understand the requirements and the underlining
> issues and advise on implementation details. We have also followed all
> the discussions on the mailing list. Several points have been raised and
> the RIPE NCC has been asked to clarify some of these points.
> 
> From the proceedings we understood the requirement is to have a single
> location in the RIPE Database to store abuse contact details for any
> Internet resource and for this to be applied hierarchically to minimise
> management effort by the users and avoid unnecessary data duplication in
> the database.
> 
> The reasoning behind the selection of a ROLE object for the task is
> partly based on our interaction with RIPE NCC member organisations. We
> understand that abuse handling in the real world is a role within an
> organisation. It therefore makes sense to map it directly to the ROLE
> object within the database.
> 
> Also the original intention of the database design was to represent
> people by PERSON objects and to group people into roles using ROLE
> objects. Then only ROLE objects should be referenced in any other data
> objects. This avoids a situation which the RIPE NCC is regularly asked
> to help with when a person leaves a company and in some cases is
> directly referenced in tens of thousands of objects. This methodology is
> explained in the RIPE Database Update Reference Manual, but was never
> enforced in the database software.
> 
> The proposal for decommissioning the IRT object was discussed briefly by
> the ACM TF. The RIPE NCC pointed out that with a general abuse handling
> ROLE defined, the IRT can be seen as a special case of the general ROLE.
> It would simplify the user interaction with RIPE database as well as the
> database design and management if the two were combined. The only reason
> that it was mentioned in the impact analysis was to point out the
> similarity of use cases and suggest a review if the policy passes. The
> RIPE NCC fully supports the view of the policy proposer to consider
> these as separate issues. The use of the phrase "plan to decommission
> IRT objects" in the impact analysis was not meant to imply the RIPE NCC
> would just go ahead and do it. Our intention was to raise the awareness
> with the community of the similarities of use and seek approval, or
> otherwise, to merge the IRT functionality with the more general
> "abuse-c:" implementation.
> 
> The Abuse Finder tool available through the ripe.net website is a first
> iteration. We found it very difficult to define a proper scope for
> heuristics to identify the correct abuse contacts for any given resource
> with the current abuse contact documentation methods. A number of users
> have reported issues with this tool providing the wrong contacts. We
> held back from modifying the logic pending the outcome of the 2011-06
> proposal. If the community agrees on a new method of storing abuse
> contacts the RIPE NCC will re-write the Abuse Finder tool to use the new
> contact details. As we have recently re-implemented the RIPE Database
> query service from scratch, we can also integrate the Abuse Finder
> directly into the query logic. It will then also be available through a
> web interface and by the RESTful API.
> 
> During the transition from the current swamp of abuse contact data to
> the 2011-06 method (if approved) the RIPE NCC will aim to provide user
> tools to assist with updates, where possible.
> 
> We hope this answers some of the questions raised regarding the
> implementation of the policy proposal 2011-06.
> 
> Regards,
> Denis Walker
> Business Analyst
> RIPE NCC Database Group
> 



-------------- 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/20120625/2d7407ea/attachment.sig>