[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 ]
Gilles Massen
gilles.massen at restena.lu
Fri Jan 29 17:21:22 CET 2016
Hi Denis, IIRC, when I looked into this your proposed workaround was not possible for a maintainer/legacy reason, but since we brought the LEGACY assignments properly under the RIPE roof, it should work know. BUT, I have a real issue with the workaround. The argument for restricting the abuse-c to an organisation was to prevent duplicate data, especially the hypothetical appearance of unmaintained contacts. However, this is exactly what you are proposing with a duplicate ORG. So instead of the hypothetical problems of keeping the fundamental logic of 'more specific', a tool only to be used by those who'd need it, the workaround makes them a certainty. 'Clumsy' does not quite describe it. In our specific case, I'd stay the slightly worse abuse-c, rather than duplicating ORG objects. Unfortunately enough, the loss (as small as it might be) is not mine... best regards, Gilles On 28/01/16 21:10, ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk wrote: > Hi Gilles > > Yes it is possible to do this. I know I keep saying this and I know no > one wants to even talk about it but the current data model does impose > some limitations. However, even with these limitations it is all about > how you perceive certain objects functions. An organisation that holds > resources must have an ORGANISATION object if they are not legacy > resources and may have one if they are legacy resources. There is > nothing stopping that organisation creating multiple ORGANISATION > objects and using them to represent departments within the same > organisation or representing some sub characteristic of the > organisation. Whatever it represents can be made clear in "descr:" and > "remarks:" attributes within the other ORGANISATION objects. These > ORGANISATION objects can be referenced from any more specific INETNUM > object and contain an "abuse-c:" attribute. > > I know this is a bit clumsy, but it IS easy to do and can be clearly > documented and can accommodate any arrangement of abuse handling you > wish to represent. > > cheers > denis > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Gilles Massen <gilles.massen at restena.lu> > *To:* anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net > *Sent:* Thursday, 28 January 2016, 19:18 > *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 New Policy Proposal (Include > Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy) > > Hello, > > Since the rationale mentions the "better quality of abuse contact data", > I'd like to point out that it is still not possible to have a different > abuse-c for different inetnums, if they belong to the same ORG. The > impossibility to have a "more specific" is the ONLY thing that prevents > me to have accurate abuse contact data for our LEGACY addresses, not the > absence of a specific policy. > > regards, > Gilles > > > > > > > -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 2, avenue de l'Université LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette tel: +352.4244091 fax: +352.422473
- 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 ]