[anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

Hi Suresh

On 07/03/2016 11:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> On 07-Mar-2016, at 4:08 PM, denis <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The "abuse-c:" IS standardised. It is well defined and documented
>> as THE method of defining abuse contact details in the RIPE
>> Database according to the policy. Historically, as I mentioned in
>> other emails, there was "abuse-mailbox:" defined in 5 object types
>
> Sure - but as you point out nobody much seems to be implementing it
> so far - or at least, very few organizations.

It has been implemented for the whole of the address space allocated or 
assigned by the RIPE NCC. We spent 6 months 'encouraging' members to 
deploy it, then another year 'encouraging' PI holders to deploy it. Then 
a recent thread on this mailing list by Tim explained how the NCC was 
going to fill in a few gaps that were created before the new LIR process 
incorporated adding abuse-c as part of the process.

So it is fully deployed and it is required for new LIRs.

>
> So yes, I’d welcome abuse-c being implemented more widely.  I’m tired
> of hunting up contact information from comment fields, in
> particular.

The legacy resources are the only resources in the RIPE Database that 
currently do not all have an abuse-c. If you use the tools provided by 
the NCC you should not need to do any manual lookups or read comments.

cheers
denis


>
> —srs
>