[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Frank Gadegast
ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de
Fri Nov 12 14:42:16 CET 2010
Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: >> Not at all. >> Modern databases will use less resources when referencing objects >> from other tables instead of copying information to many other objects. >> Using the IRT object will save resources. > > What I was thinking about was that I'm affraid that a lot of LIRs will > make a lot (with scripts, basing on current admin-c,tech-c) of IRT > objects for its customers. This will consume resources. Hm, but disk space is not really a resource these days. More important is the speed and consistency of the database, and with that, links are much better ... >> Furthermore: the definition of the IRT object does not to be changed. >> Simply that the abuse-field is mandatory in the future, and that a link >> to all INETNUM objects to an IRT object is required. >> Sounds pretty easy to implement ... > > Adding mandatory abuse-mailbox is as easy as that. Sure, but when it equal, I would choose IRT, because of the other reasons. >>> - IRT object still can be used as it is used right now (if LIR want's to >>> monitor abuse, even if the inet(6)num or aut-num is handled by its >>> customer) >> >> That will be confusing for everybody. > > Don't think so. Multiple please have to be confusing. The aim is the "single place". Multiple place are also a problem for typos ... >> BTW: I have no opinion for you proposal under >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-10.html >> yet, but find the following really interesting: >> >> "A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE >> NCC if the resource holder cannot be contacted". >> >> Im having hopes, if we put that together with Tobias' >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-09.html >> >> (BIG SMILE) > > This is happening now. :D > > You should definately read things more carefull. This is a part of > current "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource > Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region." Cannot find any difference for that point in your proposal. Your proposal says nothing about the introduction of an mandatory abuse-mailbox-field into INETNUM objects. Its just about the link to the sponsoring LIR or RIPE, what helps nothing to remove resources without a working contact. Your "pro" is: Another point of contact is known in case of any abuse. I bet there are LIRs that have no valid abuse contact either. And it does not help a lot to send abuse reports to RIPE NCC (maybe only to prove that the End User or LIR have no valid abuse contact). Please make that point more clear. > > Piotr > Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank at powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank at powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ====================================================================== Public PGP Key available for frank at powerweb.de
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]