HI Nick
I am not against policy change if that is the only way forward. But let
me just throw a quick question back at you. If someone manages (legacy)
resources and have customers using some of these resources and all this
is documented in the RIPE Database and one of those customers 'could'
cause abuse, does it not make sense to advertise an abuse contact? Isn't
this just good management of resources?
We have tried to set up one method of documenting abuse contacts so it
simplifies the process of listing, finding and managing these contacts.
I proposed cleaning up the old references to "abuse-mailbox:" in a
variety of objects, as specified in the implementation plan for
ripe-563. An argument against the cleanup was that some legacy resources
still use this outdated database functionality and have abuse contacts
in remotely referenced objects and RIPEstat still looks for these remote
references.
So to do a cleanup to complete the implementation of ripe-563 we have to
make a choice:
1/ Ask the legacy resource holders who have voluntarily provided an
abuse contact to document it in the correct way using "abuse-c:".
2/ Make a policy change to require all resources (including legacy) that
are documented in the RIPE Database to reference an "abuse-c:".
3/ Attempt a much more complicated cleanup by removing "abuse-mailbox:"
from objects that are only referenced by RIPE NCC managed resources and
not in any way remotely referenced in any legacy resource. Then add
business rules to the software to prevent any "abuse-mailbox:" attribute
being added to the wrong object type, instead of deprecating these
attributes. Also not allow updates to objects that should not have this
attribute.
4/ Just do the full cleanup anyway and risk losing some information from
those resource holders who have not kept their data up to date with
current database functionality.
cheers
denis
Independent Netizen
On 28/05/2015 22:42, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 28/05/2015 20:08, denis walker wrote:
During the RIPE Meeting you suggested the idea of legacy resource holders
adopting the practice of referencing an abuse contact using the one
accepted method currently in use in the RIPE Database with "abuse-c:". In
terms of responsible management of internet resources I don't think anyone
could argue against all resources documented in the RIPE Database making
reference to an abuse contact via an ORGANISATION object showing who is
responsible for a resource.
Many ideas raised at RIPE Meetings are quickly forgotten after the meeting.
How can we move this idea forward so it does not become another of those
'good idea, but never implemented'?
This will probably need a policy change, no?
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639
Any existing or future RIPE policy referring to resources shall not
apply to legacy resources unless the policy explicitly includes legacy
resources in its scope.
Nick
