Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] abuse contact information in whois database (AFPUB-2010-GEN-002)

Graham Beneke graham-ml at
Tue May 25 17:52:15 UTC 2010

Hi All

The RPD list has been off my radar for a little while and I have only 
recently become aware of this proposal. Below are my thoughts:

On 18/04/2010 21:51, Tobias Knecht wrote:
> 1.  Incentive:
> This is a proposal to introduce a mandatory reference to IRT objects
> in the inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects in the AfriNIC Whois Database.
> It provides a more accurate and efficient way for abuse reports to reach the
> correct network contact.

I fully support the concept of improved abuse reporting for netblocks 
and autonomous systems.

> 4.  Details of the proposal:
> It is proposed that AfriNIC:
> 4.1 Institute a mandatory reference to an IRT object in inetnum,
>      inet6num and aut-num objects.

Having reviewed some of the available documentation[1] pertaining to the 
new IRT object I fail to see how introducing a new object and a far more 
complex schema is going to be the solution.

Additionally - the requirements for trustbrokering and what appears to 
be a lengthy process to obtain an IRT object are likely to result in 
less and not more accurate data being captured into the whois db.

>      In terms of implementing a mandatory IRT reference, it is
>      suggested that this be part of two, established actions:
>      - The next time an organization attempts to update an existing
>        inetnum, inet6num or aut-num object
>      - When new inetnum, inet6num or aut-num objects are added to the
>        database

This is a logical migration path.

> 4.3 Delete abuse-mailbox fields in all objects that do not define an
>      IRT, and delete the trouble field everywhere mid 2011.

Not relevant since we don't currently support abuse-mailbox.

> 5.1 Advantages
>      - Networks will be able to supply their own, direct contact
>        information for abuse departments.
>      - Abuse complaints will not be sent to the "wrong" contact any
>        more.
>      - This permits greater administrative and operational flexibility,
>        and faster abuse handling will be possible.
>      - Since AfriNIC is using the same whois system as RIPE and APNIC,
>        the IRT-Object and the abuse-mailbox attribute are already
>        existant in the system. That makes implementing it very easy and
>        fast.

All valid points.

> 5.2 Disadvantages
>      - Introducing a mandatory reference to the IRT Object will establish
>        a new object. This object, like all other existing objects, will
>        face the data accuracy problem.

This is my primary concern. Many LIRs in the AfriNIC region already 
struggle to maintain their objects correctly and with no perceived 
benefit to this new object I expect take up will be low or invalid data 
will be entered into the db in order to bypass the requirements.

Is there any reason that the current 'role' and 'person' would not be 
sufficient for designating an abuse POC? They contain all the relevant 
email, phone and address details that are likely to be needed for 
dealing with an abuse incident.

I propose that a far more useful addition to the AfriNIC whois would be 
an abuse-c link for inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects. This link 
line could then reference any existing role or person objects.

LIRs who have the requirement can then create role objects for their 
abuse team in order to direct the communication to the relevant POC.

[1] IRT Object FAQ

Graham Beneke
Apolix Internet Services
E-Mail/MSN/Jabber: graham at   Skype: grbeneke
VoIP: 087-550-1010                       Cell: 082-432-1873

More information about the RPD mailing list