[db-wg] Action item 47.2: Proposal for Adding Abuse Contact

On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 23:33, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2004, at 18:39, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 
> > What is the point? IRT records already work this way.
> 
> No.  They are _designed_ to work this way.
> Whether they ever will on a significant scale depends on deployment.

The same will be for the abuse-* line, if it is not used, there is no
deployment ;)

Did you request an IRT object for your organisation and implement it?
It only took me a couple of hours as I mentioned some time ago.

> The statistics which Marco Hogeloon presented at Anti-Spam-47
> suggest to me that IRT is not being enthusiastically deployed.
> It would be interesting to see how those statistics are evolving
> [hint -- MarcoH, are you there?].

And what reasons are there to assume that the new proposal will
be deployed all of a sudden? It is mostly the same, but worse,
as the IRT method thus it doesn't make much sense.

> The proposal from Randy and me is intended to offer a pragmatic,
> lightweight, and easily deployed means to advertise abuse contacts.

IRT is also lightweight and easily deployed:

Create PGPKEY, which you should already have in most cases, eg
for authentication of the maintainer object, fill in the irt form
pass it to the ripe-db group and get it assigned, add them to your
_top layer_ allocations, thus not for smaller ones and done.

The lightweight part is partially not so true because you need
to request RIPE for the IRT object, but hey one needs to request
them AS, inetnum's inet6nums etc also, so where is the problem there?

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20040408/b4368b2d/attachment.sig>