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

Hi Denis,

IIRC, when I looked into this your proposed workaround was not possible
for a maintainer/legacy reason, but since we brought the LEGACY
assignments properly under the RIPE roof, it should work know.

BUT, I have a real issue with the workaround. The argument for
restricting the abuse-c to an organisation was to prevent duplicate
data, especially the hypothetical appearance of unmaintained contacts.
However, this is exactly what you are proposing with a duplicate ORG. So
instead of the hypothetical problems of keeping the fundamental logic of
'more specific', a tool only to be used by those who'd need it, the
workaround makes them a certainty. 'Clumsy' does not quite describe it.

In our specific case, I'd stay the slightly worse abuse-c, rather than
duplicating ORG objects. Unfortunately enough, the loss (as small as it
might be) is not mine...

best regards,
Gilles

On 28/01/16 21:10, ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> 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.
> 
> cheers
> denis
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU
2, avenue de l'Université
LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette
tel: +352.4244091
fax: +352.422473