i agree. RIPE NCC shouldnt be trying to make it this hard to report things
RIPE should be relying on its LIRs to reach out to customers with
incomplete whois records, and possibly also collecting information on how
many allocations with totally fake addresses (maildrops, empty lots) are
made by a single LIR. Especially for /17 and larger, or /16 and larger
And also, a closer look at netblocks assigned to entities that are outside
the normal geographical area that ripe serves. like
126.96.36.199/21registered to some entity apparently in Panama
On Saturday, April 7, 2012, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> Florian commented:
> #I looked at "Incorrect contact information in the RIPE Database", and
> #"I confirm that I have reported the incorrect information to all of
> #the contacts listed in the relevant object" is a required checkbox.
> #This seems to require that complainants try postal addresses, phone
> #and fax numbers before reporting errors in email addresses. Is this
> #really your goal? Isn't this a step backwards?
> I agree.
> >From my POV, each data element should be treated independently. The
> existence of a valid FAX number, for example, should not offset or
> eliminate the importance (or the reportability) of working to correct
> an invalid/non-deliverable email address.
> Similarly, having found an invalid field in the whois, the reporter's
> "responsibility" should be considered discharged upon their identifying
> and reporting that data to RIPE. They should not be expected to exhaust
> all potential contact methods, or to make multiple attempts to the
> broken contact channel, or to hypothetically attempt to visit the
> listed address in person, :-), just in order to be eligible to report
> a problem with data of record.
> The goal should be correcting potentially bad data, not making it hard
> to report bad data or shifting work back upon public spirited community