[anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse Working Group Minutes - RIPE 60

Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote
>> "Revoked" must be clearly visible.
>
> I disagree. I do not think the registry should publish a comment on why
> a registration exists or does not exist and the word REVOKED is clearly
> intended to imply that the registration was removed against the desires
> of the registrant.

On those - increasing number of - occasions when an RIR discovers that
information it was given in support of a registration, was untruthful or
invalid then it seems to me entirely reasonable that the RIR should make
it clear that what it had previously published, should not be relied upon.

> Publishing a registration (a positive act) but giving it a negative
> status is likely to cause confusion, especially with automated
> network-centric systems that ignore the status attribute value.

There will surely be technical solutions to that technical problem.

> I also think the example you give is unrealistic. If the ISP can see its
> own object and a bunch of other objects then the problem is unlikely to
> be that to be that the whois database is broken.

It's very realistic.  Nobody would be suggesting that the "whole database
is broken".  What would be suggested is that some records are missing or
the database has not been updated.  That would not necessarily affect the
records of the ISP querying the database, as its own record would probably
be significantly older.

> If some kind of mechanism is needed to allow network operators to check
> that a prefix is not currently registered, then we should ask the RIPE
> NCC to publish an easy to parse list of prefixes and the date on which
> they were removed from the database. Presumably a prefix would remain on
> the list until it had completed any quarantine period and is ready to be
> re-issued.

We have been asking for exactly that for some years now, partly to allow
reputational records to be reset as and when an allocation is recovered.

-- 
Richard