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

HI Elvis

On 10/03/2016 11:39, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
> Hi Gert,
>
> I agree with you that the implementation of abuse-c was 'poor'.

Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user 
inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement 
of 'poor' does not carry much weight.

>
> On 3/10/16 1:57 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
>> 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 is outdated and which isn't; which one is still relevant and which is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...
> abuse-c should have been implemented just like admin-c and tech-c is, as
> an attribute to the resource (inet(6)num and aut-num) objects.

As a massive over duplicated pile of repetitive data in 3+ million 
objects. Really good idea Elvis. That is good database design...No one 
ever checks if the admin-c and tech-c point to the right objects in 
their 10s of thousands of resource objects.

>
> It is easier for the LIR to have it in one place only, but you need to
> register an organisation and role object for each customer... if you
> want them to handle the abuse themselves. or if you have different
> departments handling abuse for different (parts of your) resources.

I will say it again, again, again....I wrote a labs article with some 
ideas on this 2 years ago which may not be the best ideas, but as no one 
has even commented on them in 2 years who knows....

>
> Maybe we should talk about changing the implementation of abuse-c such
> that you can not register a resource (allocation or assignment) unless
> you use the mandatory abuse-c (person or role) object, just as you do
> with admin-c and tech-c today.

Maybe we should talk about making admin-c and tech-c work like abuse-c. 
That would be a step in the right direction.

cheers
denis

>> Gert Doering
>>          -- NetMaster
> regards,
> elvis
>