[anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c mandatory

Which, considering what nobody implies, is a lovely way to circumvent the
grand intentions this proposal has.   Talk about leading horses to water
versus making them drink

--srs (htc one x)
On Oct 22, 2012 1:37 PM, "Jørgen Hovland" <jorgen at hovland.cx> wrote:

>  Hello,
>
> I think you might be misunderstanding how mandatory contact information
> works.
> As you can see, the mandatory e-mail field is set to nobody at accelerated.de
> When abuse-c e-mail will become mandatory, their abuse-c e-mail will
> continue to be nobody at accelerated.de.
>
>
>
> On 10/22/12 09:58, U.Mutlu wrote:
>
>> As everybody knows, the proposal "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE
>> NCC Database"
>> has already been ratified/accepted more than a month ago, but still some
>> RIPE workers
>> seem not to know this fact:
>>
>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/**policies/proposals/2011-06<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06>
>>  Authors: Tobias Knecht, abusix
>>  Proposal Version: 3.0 06 June 2012
>>  Accepted: 17 September 2012
>>  Working Group: Anti-Abuse Working Group
>>  Proposal type: New
>>  Policy term: Indefinite
>>  New RIPE Document: ripe-563
>>
>> Under §1.0 it says
>> "The "abuse-c:" will be mandatory for all aut-nums.
>> Due the hierarchical nature of IP address objects, at least every direct
>> allocated
>> inetnum and inet6num needs to have an "abuse-c:". Inherited objects might
>> have their
>> own "abuse-c:" attribute or they will be covered by the higher level
>> objects.
>> "
>>
>> Today I got the following reply from RIPE (I removed the name of the
>> sender with XXX,
>> but can give it if required). Why is this person at RIPE still saying
>> this:
>>  "At this moment is the 'abuse-c' not yet a mandatory field.
>>  There is currently a discussion on our mailing list in order to make
>> this a
>>  mandatory field, but this policy proposal is still under discussion."
>>
>> ???
>> An official from RIPE please explain to the community what this RIPE
>> person
>> means with such a statement...:
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: NCC#2012103209 abuse-c for inetnum 84.200.75.0 -
>> 84.200.75.127 missing
>> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:32:35 +0200
>> From: RIPE NCC <ncc at ripe.net>
>> Reply-To: RIPE NCC <ncc at ripe.net>
>> To: U.Mutlu <security at mutluit.com>
>>
>>
>> Dear madam/sir,
>>
>> Thank you for your e-mail.
>>
>> At this moment is the 'abuse-c' not yet a mandatory field. There is
>> currently a discussion on our mailing list in order to make this a
>> mandatory field, but this policy proposal is still under discussion.
>>
>> You can find the contact details that we have on file at:
>>
>> http://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/**lookup/ripe/person-role/ACC-**RIPE.html<http://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/person-role/ACC-RIPE.html>
>>
>> And:
>>
>> https://apps.db.ripe.net/**whois/lookup/ripe/mntner/**IWERK-MNT.html<https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/mntner/IWERK-MNT.html>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20121022/2bc258d5/attachment.html>