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

[AfriNIC-rpd] abuse contact information in whois database

Tobias Knecht tk at
Thu Jun 17 16:42:39 UTC 2010

Thank you for your feedback, that is really helpful.

> Your assertion that the IRT object can be used as its already in the 
> WHOIS database is quite right. From a development standpoint this 
> would be the preferred solution as it would be the easier one to 
> implement- all that would be required would be to essentially make 
> myAfriNIC (i.e. our web-based portal for managing internet resources)
> aware of the new object.

That is exactly what APNIC told me as well, when we had the discussion
about the IRT Object in the APNIC region.

> On the flipside, implementing an abuse-c attribute (along the same 
> lines of say a tech-c or an admin-c) would additionally involve 
> adding that attribute to the applicable objects (e.g. aut-num, 
> inetnum and inet6num, for instance), creating the necessary database 
> entries for it and, of course, specifying the logic for updating, 
> deleting and creating its records. Its certainly doable but provides 
> no discernable benefit over the (pre-existing) IRT object which
> seems to be a tailor-made solution for this issue.

Right. That seems that you are preferring the IRT-Object more, than the
other solution. Adding a mandatory abuse-mailbox field just to the IRT
Object would not be a big problem as well.

Making the IRT itself mandatory seems to be more a problem, even if it
is not technically. So I think that will not be a point anymore. I can
accept not having it mandatory

Do you think, it would create more trouble introducing an IRT Object
than an abuse-c version for the AfriNIC members. Beside reading a 4 page
long short documentation? Or do you think the stuff could be implemented
that easy and understandable into the myAfriNIC portal to make it as
easy as everything else?

> If we opt to go the IRT object route expect it to take roughly a
> month to implement, else if we go the way of adding abuse-c
> attributes to certain objects then I reckon it'll take a little
> longer. In either case it should not take more than sixty days (max).

Okay. That sounds both good. Even 60 days would be absolutely perfect.

> Hope this helps.

Absolutely. Thank you very much.



-------------- 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