[anti-abuse-wg] Discussion on 2011-06
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Discussion on 2011-06
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Discussion on 2011-06
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tobias Knecht
tk at abusix.com
Mon Jun 25 17:24:59 CEST 2012
Thanks Denis for this clarification. Tobias On 25.06.12 16:15, Denis Walker wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > Here is some background information to provide an insight into the > reasoning behind the impact analysis and proposed implementation plan > made by the RIPE NCC for policy proposal 2011-06. > > The RIPE NCC attended the meetings of the RIPE Abuse Contact Management > Task Force (ACM TF) to understand the requirements and the underlining > issues and advise on implementation details. We have also followed all > the discussions on the mailing list. Several points have been raised and > the RIPE NCC has been asked to clarify some of these points. > > From the proceedings we understood the requirement is to have a single > location in the RIPE Database to store abuse contact details for any > Internet resource and for this to be applied hierarchically to minimise > management effort by the users and avoid unnecessary data duplication in > the database. > > The reasoning behind the selection of a ROLE object for the task is > partly based on our interaction with RIPE NCC member organisations. We > understand that abuse handling in the real world is a role within an > organisation. It therefore makes sense to map it directly to the ROLE > object within the database. > > Also the original intention of the database design was to represent > people by PERSON objects and to group people into roles using ROLE > objects. Then only ROLE objects should be referenced in any other data > objects. This avoids a situation which the RIPE NCC is regularly asked > to help with when a person leaves a company and in some cases is > directly referenced in tens of thousands of objects. This methodology is > explained in the RIPE Database Update Reference Manual, but was never > enforced in the database software. > > The proposal for decommissioning the IRT object was discussed briefly by > the ACM TF. The RIPE NCC pointed out that with a general abuse handling > ROLE defined, the IRT can be seen as a special case of the general ROLE. > It would simplify the user interaction with RIPE database as well as the > database design and management if the two were combined. The only reason > that it was mentioned in the impact analysis was to point out the > similarity of use cases and suggest a review if the policy passes. The > RIPE NCC fully supports the view of the policy proposer to consider > these as separate issues. The use of the phrase "plan to decommission > IRT objects" in the impact analysis was not meant to imply the RIPE NCC > would just go ahead and do it. Our intention was to raise the awareness > with the community of the similarities of use and seek approval, or > otherwise, to merge the IRT functionality with the more general > "abuse-c:" implementation. > > The Abuse Finder tool available through the ripe.net website is a first > iteration. We found it very difficult to define a proper scope for > heuristics to identify the correct abuse contacts for any given resource > with the current abuse contact documentation methods. A number of users > have reported issues with this tool providing the wrong contacts. We > held back from modifying the logic pending the outcome of the 2011-06 > proposal. If the community agrees on a new method of storing abuse > contacts the RIPE NCC will re-write the Abuse Finder tool to use the new > contact details. As we have recently re-implemented the RIPE Database > query service from scratch, we can also integrate the Abuse Finder > directly into the query logic. It will then also be available through a > web interface and by the RESTful API. > > During the transition from the current swamp of abuse contact data to > the 2011-06 method (if approved) the RIPE NCC will aim to provide user > tools to assist with updates, where possible. > > We hope this answers some of the questions raised regarding the > implementation of the policy proposal 2011-06. > > Regards, > Denis Walker > Business Analyst > RIPE NCC Database Group > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20120625/2d7407ea/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Discussion on 2011-06
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Discussion on 2011-06
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]