This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/db-wg@ripe.net/
[db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ulrich Kiermayr
ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at
Fri Jan 30 10:24:35 CET 2004
Hi *, >>Problem is imho that a simple mail-address would only scale downwards >>[i.e. for those with few netblocks]. From the discussion it seems that >>irt only scales upwards [i.e. for the ones with many netblocks who are >>willing to understand the system without a priori saying 'it's too >>complicated] > > > Ok, opening up the can of worms: > > The question will then be: what abuse address do we write into the objects. In > allocations for sure the contact of the LIR/Provider. But into the object of > the customer networks? The address of the customer's abuse department? Or, > here too, the one of the provider? Or both? And if we use the customer's abuse > department's address, are we going forward and demand that this address will be > mandatory and has to be given in the requests for new netblocks? And if we use > both addresses, do we need tags for them to indicate the escalation level? I'd say always to the 'best match' i.e. most specific netblock that has an abuse-c/irt (that is what -c is for!). anything else should be local policy from the LIR. > Probably we should head in two directions simultaneously > > 1. A short term solution, using admin-c: <email> to better the current > situation a little. I don't see how this is a solution to the above problem. > 2. A longterm solution with a proper hierarchy, clear defined policy, and > technically easy to administrate objects -> IRT. <cynical>tong term solution most probably means 'never'</cynical> If we do it we should do it properly in the first place. > Even though I would have to touch relatively many objects, I am still willing > to got for the admin-c: <email>. I disagree. Are there any other direct opinions apart from 'i can live with both' ? lG uk -- Ulrich Kiermayr Zentraler Informatikdienst der Universitaet Wien Network - Security - ACOnet-CERT Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Wien, AT eMail: ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at Tel: (+43 1) 4277 / 14104 PGP Key-ID: 0xA8D764D8 Fax: (+43 1) 4277 / 9140
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] abuse-c: proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]