[anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

Hi Suresh

On 07/03/2016 10:57, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 07-Mar-2016, at 3:00 PM, Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/03/16 10:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>>
>>> As a reporter of quite a lot of phish - I think having something
>>> that is standardized and machine parseable helps.
>>>
>>> Those that really don’t want to handle reports for a range might
>>> want to populate something standard there too (and yes, this is a
>>> semi ironic policy proposal) - devnull at example.com or whatever.
>>
>> "no abuse-c found" looks pretty machine parsable to me.
>
> I might even agree with you, if abuse-c was actually standardized and
> if abuse contacts weren’t spread across a variety of other fields -
> such as the remarks.

The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented as THE 
method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE Database according 
to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in other emails, there was 
"abuse-mailbox:" defined in 5 object types and users often put details 
in remarks. The plan was to do a cleanup after deploying "abuse-c:" and 
remove "abuse-mailbox:" from other object types and adjust the syntax.

The RIPE NCC provides tools for finding abuse contacts based on 
"abuse-c:" and these can be used through the database API.

Again if I can ever get people to accept that the data model needs 'some 
improvement', the API should provide a means to find information from 
the database rather than pull out blocks of raw data for human readable, 
manual interpretation.

cheers
denis

>
> remarks:        +---------------------------------------+ remarks:
> | In case of complaints use the contact | remarks:        |
> information in the role object below. | remarks:
> +---------------------------------------+
>
>
>