[db-wg] Re: db-wg digest, Vol 1 #152 - 13 msgs

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

| From: Thor Kottelin <thor at anta.net>
| So, we already have the irt object and the trouble attribute.
| Additionally,
| abuse is often reported based on admin-c, tech-c, changed, remarks and
| $DEITY knows what. Please let's not add to the confusion by creating
| even more attribute or object types.

There is a clear problem with what we have now, whether techncially or
simply awareness, as it is clear that lots and lots of inet[6]num
objects have remarks identifying abuse contacts in a variety of formats.
There is a need for people to identify abuse contacts associated with an
IP[6].

"trouble" does not help as it is also free format and so not much better
than remarks.

"irt" may be the answer, and I am creating one for our use at present
(still not had a reply - why is it a manual process?). It may be over
complex. It is not well publicised to those that need to know. Even
those that know of it (and I had seen it) do not realise it is the way
to put an abuse contact on an inetnum (hence my original question).

FYI, our abuse report scripts now look for a mnt-irt field and if not
found go for the admin-c field. They used to just go for the admin field.

However, I do think something has to be done as it is a nonsense the way
it is now.

- --
Rev Adrian Kennard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAAufMHBb4e52L0Y0RAoHlAJ0ZLrp5QiftL7iWEqpcUxVUxZjLSgCcC8Vo
j86xkD4uQ0dcTkzcWOOjtaU=
=ykiB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----