[anti-abuse-wg] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal

Hi,

On 3 May 2010, at 12:56, Tobias Knecht wrote:
> 
> this proposal was planned to be published end of May. But so many people
> asked me to publish it earlier and hopefully before RIPE-60 in Praha, so
> I will.
> 
> This proposal is more or less a copy of our proposals for AfriNIC and
> APNIC. The APNIC proposal will be acknowledged today. The AfriNIC
> proposal will be discussed in Kigali end of this month.
> 
> I will not be able to come to RIPE-60, but I hope that this proposal
> finds a little spot to be discussed in the Anti-Abuse Working Group Meeting.

On the proposal to "Institute a mandatory reference to an IRT object in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects." I note that there does not seem to currently be a technical need for this. According to the query reference manual:

"Not every inet(6)num object needs to contain a reference to the irt object that applies to its range.

A reference to an irt object does not apply only to the inet(6)num object that contains the reference. It also applies to all the inet(6)num objects that are 'more specific' to the one containing the reference. The irt reference only needs to be placed in the least specific encompassing object to apply to a whole hierarchy of objects. This makes it easier to apply and maintain."

Also, I suspect that the requirement to add a reference to an IRT object when updating an inet(6)num will just result in fewer updates and an additional degradation in the quality of the registration and contact data provided. It is possible that I am wrong, so as a similar proposal has already been accepted by APNIC, perhaps this section of the proposal could be delayed until APNIC can present data showing the effect of this part of the policy on their data quality.

Regards,

Leo