HI Elvis On 10/03/2016 11:39, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
Hi Gert,
I agree with you that the implementation of abuse-c was 'poor'.
Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement of 'poor' does not carry much weight.
On 3/10/16 1:57 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 11:36:48PM +0100, Horváth Ágoston János wrote:
It's not enough to state "let's add abuse-c here and here and here". Also think about how one is supposed to return the abuse contact afterwards. It should be algorithmically feasible to fetch the abuse contact from the RIPE DB. Should inet(6)num take precedence? Should the role object? or the organisation? or maybe a route? Or a combination of these, with their parents involved? This is why I've detailed a possible and very well-defined search order in my proposal.
And one more thing. As far as data quality goes, users are not known to keep their data up to date (sorry for the few exceptions - you're not the rule). Then you will have to start to figure out which abuse-c is outdated and which isn't; which one is still relevant and which is not. That's NOT a database, that's a job for google. So, why is "require indirection via a organisation: and role: object" going to help with stale data?
Except by making it so complicated that nobody is willingly going to use it to document abuse-handling exception for more specific subnets - in which case you've succeeded... abuse-c should have been implemented just like admin-c and tech-c is, as an attribute to the resource (inet(6)num and aut-num) objects.
As a massive over duplicated pile of repetitive data in 3+ million objects. Really good idea Elvis. That is good database design...No one ever checks if the admin-c and tech-c point to the right objects in their 10s of thousands of resource objects.
It is easier for the LIR to have it in one place only, but you need to register an organisation and role object for each customer... if you want them to handle the abuse themselves. or if you have different departments handling abuse for different (parts of your) resources.
I will say it again, again, again....I wrote a labs article with some ideas on this 2 years ago which may not be the best ideas, but as no one has even commented on them in 2 years who knows....
Maybe we should talk about changing the implementation of abuse-c such that you can not register a resource (allocation or assignment) unless you use the mandatory abuse-c (person or role) object, just as you do with admin-c and tech-c today.
Maybe we should talk about making admin-c and tech-c work like abuse-c. That would be a step in the right direction. cheers denis
Gert Doering -- NetMaster regards, elvis