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

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

Tobias Knecht tk at
Tue Jun 15 19:35:59 UTC 2010

Hi Owen,

thank you for your feedback.

> I think that an optional abuse-c person object is a better solution. It is far simpler
> for people to implement both at the RIR and the ISP/End-user level. People that
> want to provide an abuse contact can do so, and, people that do not want to provide
> one can expect abuse reports to go to their other contacts. I don't see this as an
> unreasonable situation as it has worked reasonably well in the ARIN region for
> some time.

Okay. I suggest that somebody from the DB team at AfriNIC should say a
word about the difference of implementing a abuse-c and an IRT Object. I
think that might be pretty helpful. My idea was to use the IRT Object
because it is already in the database and just needs to be used.

Creating an IRT Object is not more complicated as creating another
role/person object. And if there will be a good documentation, there
will be absolutely no problem in my opinion.

> If you need to query more than 250 abuse-c contacts per day from a given RIR,
> I would argue that you are probably doing something other than legitimate abuse
> reporting. As such, I do not see the whois query rate restrictions as a significant
> barrier.

Wrong. Our spamtrap network receives around 15 million spam messages a
day and that is just because we do not want to spend more money to
receive more. That is all over round about 48.000 different AS Numbers
world wide just in May 2010. 10% of the AS Numbers are based in the US.

So in my opinion there is a need of unrestricted query access.

> Making the contact field mandatory has a number of implementation details not
> considered by the author, such as interim database referential integrity issues (the
> time during which some organizations do not have IRT objects and yet this is a
> mandatory field). These are not insurmountable, but, I believe that it creates an
> unnecessary burden without much benefit over the simple abuse-c field added
> to the organization and possibly other object records.

You are right about the integrity problem and as well that they are not

Nevertheless I'm interested in the information from some AfriNIC DB
people about the implementation periods.

Thank you


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list