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

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:36:48PM +0100, Horváth Ágoston János wrote:
> It's not enough to state "let's add abuse-c here and here and here".
> Also think about how one is supposed to return the abuse contact
> afterwards. It should be algorithmically feasible to fetch the abuse
> contact from the RIPE DB. Should inet(6)num take precedence? Should
> the role object? or the organisation? or maybe a route? Or a
> combination of these, with their parents involved?

This is why I've detailed a possible and very well-defined search order
in my proposal.

> And one more thing. As far as data quality goes, users are not known
> to keep their data up to date (sorry for the few exceptions - you're
> not the rule). Then you will have to start to figure out which abuse-c
> is outdated and which isn't; which one is still relevant and which is
> not. That's NOT a database, that's a job for google.

So, why is "require indirection via a organisation: and role: object"
going to help with stale data?

Except by making it so complicated that nobody is willingly going to
use it to document abuse-handling exception for more specific subnets
- in which case you've succeeded...

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20160310/9d644c3e/attachment.sig>