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] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Fri Nov 16 20:18:02 CET 2012
* Denis Walker: > The discussions around the abuse handling in the Anti Abuse Working > Group have made it clear that this will not be personal data. So these > ROLE objects will be available without the limits that personal data > is subject to. They will also be available in the bulk data > dumps. This is why we propose to allow an "abuse-c:" attribute to > reference only a ROLE object and not a PERSON object. As Kaveh said, > the ROLE object was not designed to, and should not, hold personal > data. Does this mean that you will publish a ROLE object in the bulk dump once it is referenced from an abuse-c: field? Right now, you're redacting ROLE objects—but as Kaveh said, ROLE objects should not contain personal data, so there shouldn't be a reason for redacting them. That's where my confusion comes from, I guess.
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC's proposed implementation of Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]