[db-wg] NWI-7 proposal for fixing "abuse-c:" problems

* denis walker via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> [2017-04-18 16:11]:
> Colleagues Below is a proposal for fixing the problems with
> "abuse-c:" as shown in the problem statement for
> NWI-7 https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/numbered-work-items
> 
> I look forward to comments.

Hello Denis,

thank you for this. I've read it three times now to understand how it
it works and I think this underlines what I tried to say in the
original problem statement:

  The problem statement looks good to me, I only would like to comment
  that the current way seems *too* complicated / bloated for a lot of
  people. So a solution should aim to be more "lightweight" for lack of
  a better word. That might happen naturally when tackling the problem
  statement but nontheless I would like to mention it.

So... I don't think this will make it easier to understand or
implement for people who just want to add an abuse contact and
subsequently will not improve abuse contact information in the
database.

> It's clear from the problem statement that some situations cannot be
> handled with the current arrangement. Mainly because it would
> require a reference to a second ORGANISATION object from a resource
> object. This is not possible with the syntax and business rules in
> the database.

Also the RIPE NCC has stated that it does not want two ORG-IDs for an
enduser. If this goes forward I think it would be a good idea to have
at least a statement from the RIPE NCC that they would be okay with an
enduser having multiple chained organisation objects for this.

> There is also a question over the double indirection to get to the
> abuse contact information, ie resource object -> ORGANISATION object
> -> ROLE object. If it is accepted that an email on it's own is not
> sufficient information and the clear link to the organisation with
> responsibility for handling abuse is also required, then this double
> indirection is needed. With the right tools it's easy to manage this
> data. This point is not a technical or operational show stopper.
> It's more about who needs what information and how do they get it.

I think it is a show stopper. You have to understand the logic and
implement the tools. Many LIRs will shy away from that. Instead just
adding an "abuse-c:" field to an object is easily understandable.

As for email being not sufficient information, in the last 10+ years I
cannot remember a single abuse complaint that was not done via email.
The only exception might be some special cases that directly involve
law enforcement or such, and for those the main ORG object should be
enough.

To sum it up, I don't think that this approach will make it easier to
add and maintain abuse information in the database and as such will
not improve the goal of having accurate and up-to-date abuse contact
information. I would not support the proposal in this form.

Regards

Sebastian

-- 
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A  9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
            -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 581 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20170420/f3000cc8/attachment.sig>