[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid?

Hi, and sorry for not engaging in this discussion at an earlier point in
time.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:09 PM Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:

>
> I personally have no problem with this change. I recognise the importance
> of documenting every end-user’s contact details, as end-users were often
> actively involved in running their network. But in this day and age of
> outsourcing, the value of the information is much lower than it used to be.
>
> I’m not saying that there is no value anymore! There are many cases where
> resource holders are actually network operators with relevant information
> in the DB, but I don’t think that changing the policy will cause them to
> suddenly stop creating DB objects. And for those who don’t *want* to
> document things, they have already found ways around that in the current
> implementation of the policy.
>

I sort of agree with the reasoning, however: sloppy contact details have
real world consequences.

They result in blocklisting of entire IP ranges, for email, or even for
other kinds of network traffic, because the contacts listed are "dummy"
contacts.

Denis is, although wordy and repetitive, pretty much dead on with the
reasoning.

However, I do not think it is necessary to require person names or other
direct PII.

Roles and role addresses could be encouraged.

In some parts of the Internet, there are regulatory requirements that abuse
departments answer and deal with complaints in a timely manner. These time
limits are fairly short.

Just because e.g. Google and Microsoft laugh in the face of such
requirements and provide dysfunctional contact points, does not make it
okay, nor an obvious matter of policy change to remove the requirement.


>
> I think the best way forward would be:
> - encourage operators to document *useful* contact info (a SHOULD)
> - don’t require what we don’t/won’t/can’t enforce (no MUST)
>

I disagree, the MUST should be there.


> - realise that the current internet is not the internet that this DB was
> designed for
>

Might as well stop issuing policy at all, then.


> - align IPv4 and IPv6 requirements/standards where possible
>

I see no reason why policyregarding contact details should differ between
IP versions.

-- 
Cheers,
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20231003/fc332367/attachment.html>