[address-policy-wg] 2022-02 New Policy Proposal (Remove mandatory IPv4 PA assignment registration in the RIPE Database)

HI Leo

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 16:25, Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 04:44, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 1:02 PM Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 03:50, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Does this approach rely on the registered user knowing about their
> >> network and Internet connection? What happens when everything was
> >> installed by an external contractor?
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand. What does who installed a network have to do with this?
> >
> > You get in touch with an abuse contact, which is supposed to be whoever is responsible for handling abuse complaints for a network address.
> >
> > If a contractor's email address is somehow in there, then the contractor should know that their email address is listed as abuse contact, and when someone gets in touch about abusive content/behaviour hosted at A.B.C.D, either do something about it, or forward to the correct contact point.
> >
> > The same goes for any other scenario.
>
> I am trying to understand the difference between an assignment that
> lists a company name but has all the contact information pointing at
> the LIR and just relying on the contact data in the allocation. Is
> there any difference?

Yes. It is not only about contacting but also identifying. It seems to
be an 'accepted practice' to list the name and address of the 'holder'
of the assignment in the "descr:" attribute. This is regardless of who
an operator might contact for network or abuse issues.

cheers
denis

>
> >> As I read the proposal, it is intended to allow LIRs to prune the
> >> records they believe do not add value. It would enable discretion,
> >> rather than blind obedience. Is that a negative? If so, why?
> >
> >
> > This is putting the cart before the horse. The proposal should argue why this is a positive.
>
> You are right. The obligation is on the proposal. But it is often
> helpful to look at the complete picture when evaluating a proposal.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Leo Vegoda, Address Policy WG co-chair
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/