[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)

Hi Gilles
Yes it is possible to do this. I know I keep saying this and I know no one wants to even talk about it but the current data model does impose some limitations. However, even with these limitations it is all about how you perceive certain objects functions. An organisation that holds resources must have an ORGANISATION object if they are not legacy resources and may have one if they are legacy resources. There is nothing stopping that organisation creating multiple ORGANISATION objects and using them to represent departments within the same organisation or representing some sub characteristic of the organisation. Whatever it represents can be made clear in "descr:" and "remarks:" attributes within the other ORGANISATION objects. These ORGANISATION objects can be referenced from any more specific INETNUM object and contain an "abuse-c:" attribute.
I know this is a bit clumsy, but it IS easy to do and can be clearly documented and can accommodate any arrangement of abuse handling you wish to represent.
cheersdenis
 

      From: Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu>
 To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net 
 Sent: Thursday, 28 January 2016, 19:18
 Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
   
Hello,

Since the rationale mentions the "better quality of abuse contact data",
I'd like to point out that it is still not possible to have a different
abuse-c for different inetnums, if they belong to the same ORG. The
impossibility to have a "more specific" is the ONLY thing that prevents
me to have accurate abuse contact data for our LEGACY addresses, not the
absence of a specific policy.

regards,
Gilles






   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160128/382db931/attachment.html>