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

On 7 Mar 2016, at 10:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

>> On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> Sure - but as you point out nobody much seems to be implementing it so 
> far - or at least, very few organizations.
>
> So yes, I’d welcome abuse-c being implemented more widely.  I’m 
> tired of hunting up contact information from comment fields, in 
> particular.

   I can imagine.  I've just taken a look at this thread
   
(https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2004-April/thread.html#2678) 
about the plans to
   move away from depending on comments by defining and introducing the 
"abuse-mailbox" property.

   You tell us that, 12 years or so later, you're still depending on 
comments.

On Thu May 6 12:39:12 CEST 2004,
I wrote 
(https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2004-May/002724.html):

> [...] we (for some value of "we") have to devise a least-effort,
> greatest-effect strategy for reaching "there" from "here".
> I keep feeling we're still looking at tactics.

   I'm sorry to say that I see proposal 2016-01 as more of the same, and 
a distraction
   from the real work.  Administrative imposition of some measure as 
mandatory won't fill
   the gaps in the data.  Neither will having a more consistent data 
model.

   This toothpaste has been out of the tube since before the RIPE NCC 
came into existence.
   By now, it's all over the floor. Cleaning it up can only be done by 
crawling around
   between the cabinets and sanitary fittings with a spatula or damp 
cloth, not by admiring
   the architect's proposals for how the bathroom might be remodelled.

   At least for for 2028 (12 years further on), we can hope that 
pervasive adoption of
   IPv6 will have made Legacy IPv4 resources irrelevant.

   Best regards,
   Niall