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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
dbwg at c4inet.net
Mon Mar 7 23:37:14 CET 2016
I'm just going to go "+1" on that as I couldn't have said it any better. rgds, Sascha Luck On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 10:31:51PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: >Hi, > >On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:02:26PM +0100, denis wrote: >> > The requirement for role: objects is also annoying >> > if all there is is just a single person - so admin-c:, tech-c: point to >> > "the person that is responsible for everything", while abuse-c: needs a >> > new object. >> >> Please learn from past mistakes. > >Yes, please *do so*. Do not design something that is going to win a price >at a computer scientist conference - design something that is easy to work >with. > >The current abuse-c: design is annoying, because it requires extra work >to get to the point of documenting what you want to document. So people >(remember: we want *people* to use that, and put useful information in >there) are annoyed, and stop bothering. > >I'm a bit more verbose about this, but if you ever wondered *why* abuse-c: >isn't the huge success people expected: this is part of the "why". It is >way too annoying to use. > >[..] >> > Maybe some extended outreach activity could be started to actually ensure >> > that some human is alive at ERX holders that the NCC had no contact >> > anymore since <x> years - but friendly, not pushy. They have been here >> > first, we have no authority over them. >> >> 2007-01? > >One of the early version of 2007-01 indeed covered legacy resource holders, >and was killed in WG chairs last call - for precisely that reason. The >final proposal that was accepted only covered resources given out by the >RIPE NCC. > >Precisely my point. > >Gert Doering > -- NetMaster >-- >have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > >SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]