About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [db-wg] abuse-c

  • To: John Green < >
  • From: "Menno Pieters (Stelvio)" < >
  • Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:59:09 +0100
  • Organization: Stelvio

John Green wrote:

Menno Pieters (Stelvio) wrote:
The object itself is not so complicated. The mechanism to create it
is,

and that has a purpose (see above).

I can't see anything "above" which explains why the creation purpose
 should be complicated.
Well, "above" I wrote:

In the current implementation the IRT and the LIR (maintainer) are
supposes to be different groups of persons, whether they are part of
the same organisation of not. The LIR cannot simply make the IRT
responsible for its IP range, but the IRT has to authorise this, by
counter-signing the request to add an mnt-irt attribute to the
inet[6]num object. Otherwise any maintainer of an inet[6]num (which
could be delegated) could simply make the inet[6]num object point to
any IRT for abuse complaints. The current mechanism is to protect the
IRT form being blamed for things they are not responsible for simply
because "Evil Company" points a finger towards them.
To elaborate on that, the complications for creating an IRT object are:
- You need a maintainer for an IRT object (which is not required for an extra attribute or a person/role object);
- Strong authentication from both the IRT and the LIR is required to link an IRT object to the inet[6]num object.

The reasons to do it this way is to prevent that the IRT mentioned in the IRT object gets complaints about abuse made form IP ranges that they are not responsible for, simply because "Evil Company" put the e-mail address of the IRT in its inet[6]num object (or as Daniel Karrenberg suggested in on of the maintainer objects protecting the object).

So both the IRT and the LIR (even if they are in the same room or just next door), must agree. In a small organisation it is possible that it's the same (group of) person(s), using the same PGP key and the problem is void, because the request needs to be signed only once.

Regards,

Menno Pieters

--
Menno Pieters - Stelvio
Postbus 215, 3740 AE Baarn
phone: +31-35-5.429.324 / fax: +31-35-5.429.327
XOIP: +31-84-8.720.349 / Web: http://www.stelvio.nl/




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>
 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | © RIPE Community. All rights reserved.
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community