[db-wg] IRT object creation is easy

Hi Jeroen

Jeroen Massar wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Christian Rasmussen [mailto:chr at jay.net] wrote:
> 
> 
>>Im sure that creating an IRT object is doable for any ISP 
>>which takes the time. The reason why I do not wish to use
>>IRT is that it is much too complex
>>for the very simple purpose it should have. It seems to have 
>>been designed to be used for outsourcing of abuse-handling,
>>Im sure some ISP's do this but
>>I haven't yet seen any numbers which justifies a design which 
>>primarily favors these ISP's.
> 
> 
> It is a seperate object, just like what the abuse-c is supposed
> to be, but indeed without the encryption. If you put one pgpkey
> in the RIPE registry you are done, and you should already be
> using signed messages to update your objects anyways.
> 
> 
>>Remove the encryption-thing on the IRT object and let it be 
>>maintained by a maintainer object, then Im sure more ISP's
>>would be willing to implement it,
>>but for it to become a success I still believe the designers 
>>need to pay attention to the needs of those ISP's who have
>>no use for the current version.
> 
> 
> I could live with changing the mnt-irt to be an or case with
> the mnt-by too indeed as currently when one wants to update
> an object protected by the mnt-irt it needs to be signed by
> both the mnt-by and the mnt-irt, when you are 'outsourcing'
> as you call it this is a problem, otherwise one will have
> access to both the maintainer and the irt anyhow.

You only need to include the authorisation for the mnt-irt: when it is first 
added to an object. Once the mnt-irt: is in the object you do not need to 
include this authorisation for subsequent modifications or deletions. Nor do 
you need this authorisation to remove the mnt-irt: from this object. So only 
the addition of an mnt-irt: attribute needs to be authorised by the mnt-irt:. 
(It does not matter if this attribute is included when creating the object or 
added later with a modification of the object, both would require the 
additional authorisation.)

> 
> 
>>I think its very unfortunate that the Ripe DB doesn't have 
>>abuse information on all IP addresses, that should actually
>>be the primary goal for a public
>>IP database, at least from the Internet users perspective.
> 
> 
> Well currently, according to toolwriters, it has, as they will
> just use all the e-mail lines they can find.
> Now there is a good solution, not ;)
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook
> Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
> 
> iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFc7lgAA5OUAnj9D2qJO0OVwEzz+bJUXwX1A
> Tbx3AKCKHU1lljo9gV+IIs/Wc8uJsavWjA==
> =wszm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Best Regards

Denis Walker
RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department