Hi, I wasn't aware this object type existed, but I can see ripe-254 is from July 2002, so its not exactly new.. The current situation in my opinion is that people (or applications) simply send their abuse complaint to all possible email addresses showing up when doing a whois on an IP address. In many cases such mails are never replied, which is the reason why all addresses are used instead of just trying one, people believe there is a greater chance for a reply this way.. This behaviour will probably not change until people feel confident that a mail to an abuse address found on a whois is read by the actual technicians who takes care of this. Realistically I think the majority of inetnum objects needs to have such a record before anything will change. Therefore I believe it has to be mandatory for all new inetnum objects to reference an abuse address. This irt object seems a bit complex with encryption and so on if the intention should be for all inetnums to reference such an object. It has to be the responsibility of the LIR maintaining the address block to ensure endusers are not abusing the addresses. Only the LIR can create inetnum objects for their address block (else something is very wrong!) and this way have the ability to ensure the correct abuse address is used, so I don't see how it can be absolutely necessary to use encryption..?! The procedure for implementing the irt object (modify every single inetnum object) does not exactly motivate LIRs, what about referencing an abuse object from the maintainer object? MNT-BY is mandatory on inetnum objects, so it should be possible for a LIR to reference all inetnum objects this way by just adding an attribute to their maintainer object. I imagine it would be possible for the whois to show a part of a maintainer object? I would suggest to use something simpler than the irt object, what about a role object or simply a person object as suggested by Adrian Kennard? The most important has to be to have all inetnum objects referencing some kind of abuse object, until then it will not have much effect. Once this goal is reached it can be extended with encryption and so on if the LIRs wants it. Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Christian Rasmussen Hosting manager, jay.net a/s Smedeland 32, 2600 Glostrup, Denmark Email: noc@jay.net Personal email: chr@corp.jay.net Tlf./Phone: +45 3336 6300, Fax: +45 3336 6301 Produkter / Products: http://hosting.jay.net
-----Original Message----- From: db-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:db-wg-admin@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Jan Meijer Sent: 9. januar 2004 13:33 To: Rev Adrian Kennard Cc: db-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [db-wg] abuse-c
Hi,
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Rev Adrian Kennard wrote:
I am new to this mailing list, so forgive me if this has been covered before.
It seems there is a pretty clear need for an extra field in inetnum and inet6num records, specifically something like an abuse-c field referencing a person record.
A lot of inetnum records I have seen have a remarks field identifying the abuse ocntact, but this is in an inconsistent format making it difficult to automate in any way. It also seems that a lot of network administrators (admin-c) do not feel they should administer their network to remove viruses, etc, and get quite annoyed when contacted regarding abuse.
What would be the procedure for proposing such a new field?
It's already there :).
Please check http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/irt-object.html
and the TF-CSIRT effort to make it easier to use this: http://www.dfn-cert.de/team/matho/irt-object/
It's not perfect but it's there.
Jan
-- /~\ The ASCII / Jan Meijer \ / Ribbon Campaign -- -- SURFnet bv X Against HTML / http://www.surfnet.nl/organisatie/jm/ / \ Email http://cert-nl.surfnet.nl/