This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tobias Knecht
tk at abusix.com
Thu Apr 19 15:04:32 CEST 2012
On 17.04.12 11:55, Gilles Massen wrote: > > > On 04/17/2012 11:04 AM, Frank Gadegast wrote: > >> - the abuse-c will remove all other appearances of abuse contact >> information > > If that is true, then please have it say so in the proposal. Currently I > worry about the IRT object which is my view more valuable (as in > 'complete') than the abuse-c. And the requirement could well be 'have > either one (XOR preferred over OR for data consistency) for each inetnum'. > > But it really needs to be defined (and/or discussed) beforehand. First of all thanks for your input and sorry for my delayed answer. I wanted to check with some people here at RIPE 64 about this. I would not tackle the IRT Object in any way with this policy proposal, because imho the IRT object is more used by Certs and not really used by Abuse Departments. The first version of this proposal was going into your direction and was suggesting to use the IRT Object as place for the abuse contact information as well, but in the Task Force we decided that this might be not the right place, for the mentioned reasons. There might be the idea of renaming the mnt-irt into irt-c just to make it more clear, that it is a contact, but this is something we can come up in the RIPE NCC impact analysis. I think we should wait and see how the IRT Object will be handled after this proposal is in place and may be there can be a decision about keeping the IRT Object in place or not, or maybe even changing it to it's origin idea. But I would not like to have this decision in this proposal since it is a different discussion. Hope that helps and thanks again for your input. Tobias -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20120419/1641a215/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Discussion Period extended until 7 May 2012 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]