[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Thu Jan 28 19:12:23 CET 2016
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:53:57PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote: Hi Erik > >> > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01 > >> > >> I've read the proposal and I have a question on it. > >> > > >You propose that you want to extend the Abuse-C Contact management in > > >the RIPE Database policy towards Legacy Internet Resource Holders. > > > > > >However ... > > > > > >That is already the case ... isn't it ? ... > > >I don't think so. ;-) > > Can you explain what you are missing ? > Because there is already an option for Legacy holder to correctly > register the Org-ID in their Legacy resources .. And the Org-ID > already has the (currently non-mandatory) optional field : Abuse-C ... "An option" as you said is the answer to the question. I hope that Marco will send some numbers tomorrow and it will be more clear that the option is sadly not enough. > >> So the question that would come to my mind is, do you want to enforce > >> the inclusion of the Org-ID into the legacy ( or any type of inet-num) > >> object .. and have the abuse-c as a mandatory field in the org-id. ? > > >Yes and no. Yes, I do want to enforce the inclusion of the Org-ID into > >the legacy objects. No, I do not want to have the abuse-c as a mandatory > >field in organisation object. One of the reasons for the latter is that > >there is no need for mandatory abuse-c for assignments within > >allocation, due to the hierarchical nature of the abuse-c itself. > > So you don't want to enforce through the database (at an update by the > LRH ) to make sure that all parent objects will have an Org-ID.. which > will fix the database accuracy things you speak of.. > That you don't want it enforced for more specific objects, is > something to debate about.. but it should at least be possible at that > level.. Noted. > >> As for Legacy resource holders, that might be an issue to enforce, as > >> the RIPE NCC can't reach out to all legacy holders that are > >> 'incompliant' as we can't ask them to start guessing who are the > >> actual legitimate holders.. > > > True. But even for some of them, who sign the contract it is not > > possible to enforce that. Even considering the fact that those LRHs have > > to "maintain accurate data in the registry in respect of each resource > > identified" (see RIPE-639, Section 3.0, bullet 4). > > I think our view of enforcing is different here.. I see a mandatory > field in a database as a way to 'gently push' users into the And/or business rule in the database. > envisioned direction ... Without the requirement for the RIPE NCC to > call them up or make the change for them, based on guessing who the > actual LRH is ... Again. Let's wait for the numbers. From my opinion this could be a very long term process. > I think that you are looking for a stronger mandate here.. ( Please > correct me if I'm wrong on this ..) and do a new 2007-01 kind of > effort and start calling all Legacy holders .. with or without a > contract to make sure they are going to update their legacy inet-nums. > Where the Legacy holders may not have a contractual relationship with > the RIPE NCC and the RIPE NCC doesn't have a contact point into a > certain company who might have receive IP space in 1993 ... Well. Not all. Not every LRH have had registered its resources in the RIPE Whois DB. But I get your point. And probably the answer is yes. If and only if the community will decide to follow this approach. > I would not be in favor of such an effort ... > > I don't see how the RIPE NCC could ever do or complete such a task as > it is asking the (almost) impossible .. and there is no financial / > contractual relation between the LRH and the RIPE NCC, so why would > the LRH do it at all. That is the question from Pandora's box. I don't want to start a debate why NCC should serve those LRHs without contracts and invite them to register resources in the DB. I believe I know the arguments of both sides. > Doing a more light touch approach in a database schema, will not ask > for an impossible task and it will not cost X amount of men years of > work ... and get similar results.. > Those that will update / change their info in the RIPE DB, will need > to update the resources with the Org-ID including an Abuse-C. I'm glad that you propose that. This is one of the possible choices I'm aware of. And it seems that this is one which has a good balance of compromise, effectiveness and cost. > And don't under estimate the number of Legacy changes, especially with > all transfers currently.. so that might actually go quite fast.. Good point. Regards, Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]