[anti-abuse-wg] Sources of Abuse Contact Info For Abuse Handlers

Denis, Piotr,

thanks for getting back to me.
Comments inline


__________ ursprüngliche Nachricht __________
> Hi All
>
> On 18/11/2015 19:31, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 05:01:30PM +0100, de Brün, Markus wrote:
> >> Unfortunately, there are still lots of CIDRs for which the RIPE DB does
> >> not return a dedicated abuse contact. In some cases, you can find an
> >> appropriate contact in the "remarks" or other records - which is
> >> difficult to parse automatically. In other cases there is no contact
> >> information at all.
> >
> > And this is mostly the case of legacy resources. Hope we will deal with
> > that.
>
> Yes that is correct but there was also a problem with setting up the
> "abuse-c:" when new LIRs were registered which persisted long after the
> project for ensuring all resources issued by the RIPE NCC had an
> "abuse-c:". I believe this problem has since been resolved but there are
> still some resources that do not yet have an "abuse-c:" because of this.
> Some catching up and enforcing needs to be done.
>
Thanks for explaining.
I would still suggest a clarification to the text, because you could get the 
impression that there is always an abuse-c. And we are not there yet.

> >> Section 6.6.1 of this document says that "it [is] mandatory for every
> >> resource object (inetnum, inet6num and aut-num) to have a dedicated
> >> abuse contact."
> >>
> >> <nitpicking> ripe-563 states that "every direct allocated inetnum and
> >> inet6num needs to have an ???abuse-c:???", which is different from
> >> "every" as is the quote above. </nitpicking>
> >
> > I'm not sure what you are trying to say. RIPE-563 also states the same
> > about aut-nums. And I'm pretty much sure that word "every" used in
> > section 6.6.1 of the document mentioned above is used properly due to
> > the hierarchical nature of IP address objects.
>
> Again Piotr is correct. I think it is a question of how you interpret
> the word "have". Subject to above all resources must 'have' an
> "abuse-c:". When this was implemented it was decided not to make the
> reference directly from each resource object. There are over 3 million
> INETNUM objects which, through their hierarchical nature, reference tens
> of thousands of ORGANISATION objects. So rather than replicate the same
> information across so many objects it was decided to put the reference
> in the ORGANISATION object and inherit it in the resources. It was an
> example of how an organisation centric data model and the use of
> inheritance could dramatically reduce the amount of repetitive data in
> the database and make the whole system simpler and easier to manage.
Makes sense. This is essentially what I was trying to describe. I would 
suggest to make this more explicit in the document. That is to say "an 
INETNUM references an ORG which in turn contains an abuse-c" instead of "an 
INETNUM has an abuse-c".

Cheers,
Markus


>
> cheers
> denis
>
> >> In fact, afaik you cannot add an abuse-c record to an inetnum object at
> >> all,
> >
> > Not directly, but indirectly through organisation objects it is possible
> > for any single inetnum object.
> >
> >> can you? abuse-c records are usually added to higher level objects like
> >> LIR ORG and then inherited by the lower level inetnum objects. If you
> >> want to set a dedicated abuse-contact for an inetnum, you need to add a
> >> reference to an ORG object with the corresponding abuse-c record. (see
> >> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/creating-and-finding-abuse-contacts-
> >>in-the-ripe-database)
> >
> > This works the same way for allocations and assignments (and legacy as
> > well).
> >
> > Piotr
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20151119/41614e9e/attachment.sig>