[db-wg] Proposed changes for abuse

Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 16, Ulrich Kiermayr <ulrich.kiermayr at univie.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> 
>>In my opinion this aproach is wrong. an inetnum or route does not have 
>>an email or even read emails. There is *someone* there handling abuse, 
>>who has an email (maybe designated for abuse) that is reading malis and 
>>hopefully doing something. What do I miss here.
>>
>>My view. It is valid to add the abuse mailbox to objects that describe 
>>Prrsons or Groups of them (person:, role:, organisation:), but to 
>>implement a reference to them for objects that describe ressources 
>>(inetnum, inet6num, route, ....). 'abuse-c:' for example.
> 
> Agreed. Note that this "reference" is irt-mnt. It's annoying that
> requests to have IRT records returned by default have been ignored. I do
> not remember anybody arguing against this, and without this IRT records
> are just dead.

100% agreed. Then let me turn that a bit. return what is in mnt-irt by 
default, add abuse-mailbox to things beeing someone. and permit 
Person/Roles in the 'mnt-irt:' attribute for those that do not want to 
bother with the referencing/gpg/crypto stuff. (irt is more of a role 
than a maintainer anyway)

and no RFC2822 email in objects that describe a ressource.

and modify the querying (-c, -b) to return that properly on first sight.

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