[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field

Hi,

> My understanding was that the object / field would be used / assigned
> in any allocations of IP space. Can someone please explain to me how
> it is possible that an organisation could have IPs but not have an
> email address or website? And if that is the case, then shouldn't the
> next level up be taking responsibility for abuse of the resources? Or
> am I missing something?

Fully agree. Thats why for all direct allocations the abuse-c will be 
mandatory. For everybody else it will be optional. The hierarchy and the 
mandatory abuse-c at the top of the chain will give us at least one 
abuse contact per ip address, which is the absolute minimum.

And I fully agree to the part with the responsibility. There must be one 
party that can and takes responsibility for abuseive behavior. If they 
feel they are the wrong persons they have to explain their subdelegation 
that they need to publish an abuse-c and handle the traffic themselves.

> I like the suggestion that the field be a URL that can be either a
> mailto or a http. I don't really care if some reporters have issues
> with this or not - I don't work for them and they're not paying me or
> anyone else - in fact many of them are getting paid .. so .. I also
> have issues with a lot of the automated reporting tools that some
> people insist on using, but that's off topic :)

I really like this idea, but at the moment I would rather stay with 
abuse-mailbox as an email and add an abuse-url: or similar later.

The reason is, that we can not foresee what will happen in the near 
future and nobody knows if API reporting is something that will show up. 
At the moment all institutions (maawg, IETF, APWG, ...) are working on 
reporting and use email based transport. So we should stay with that and 
not offer for publication of things that are not even here and not 
nearly standardized or even used in a real world scenario.

> I strongly oppose any "non responsive" type label being used. That
> will cause a lot of issues for LIRs and will do little to advance the
> anti-abuse ethic

Fully agree.

Thanks,

Tobias