[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 ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Jan 30 18:25:34 CET 2016
Hi Giles Unfortunately it is not easy to accommodate every possible arrangement and keep it tightly controlled. Before "abuse-c:" was introduced the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute was allowed in 5 object types and it became unmanageable. (It still is in 5 object types as the clean-up has not yet been done.) On 29/01/2016 17:21, Gilles Massen wrote: > 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 Strictly speaking it is not exactly a 'duplicate' ORGANISATION object. Something is different at this point in your network (abuse handler). But we don't have any other way of noting a difference except by using the ORGANISATION object. I really wish people were willing to at least talk about a data model review. So much could be improved. cheers denis > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
- 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 ]