[anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)

Hi Jordi,

A period of 48 hours looks too short to me, I suggest something like within
a period of 2 working days (or even more).

Regards,

Arash



On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:44 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> wrote:

> I fully agree with this proposal and should be implemented ASAP.
>
> HOWEVER, I’ve a question regarding the impact analysis, and specially this
> sentence:
>
> “To increase efficiency, this process will use an automated solution that
> will allow the validation of “abuse-mailbox:” attributes without sending an
> email. No action will be needed by resource holders that have configured
> their “abuse-mailbox:” attribute correctly.”
>
> Reading the policy proposal, how the NCC concludes that it should be
> “without sending an email”?
>
> I will say that the right way to do a validation (at creation/modification
> and yearly) is, in a way that makes sense (having an email that nobody is
> processing is exactly the same as not having the abuse attribute at all):
> 1) Send an email with a link that must be clicked by a human (so some kind
> of captcha-like mechanism should be followed)
> 2) If this link is not clicked in a period of 48 hours (not including
> Saturday-Sunday), an alarm should be generated so the NCC can take the
> relevant actions and make sure that the mailbox is actively monitored by
> the LIR
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: policy-announce <policy-announce-bounces at ripe.net> en nombre de Marco
> Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>
> Fecha: jueves, 18 de enero de 2018, 12:23
> Para: <policy-announce at ripe.net>
> Asunto: [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         Dear colleagues,
>
>           Policy proposal 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" is now in
>           the Review Phase.
>
>           The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to
>           regularly validate "abuse-c:" information and to follow up in
>           cases where the attribute is deemed to be incorrect.
>
>           This proposal has been updated following the last round of
>           discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences
>           from version v1.0 include:
>           - A focus on validating the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute and fixing
>           incorrect contact information
>           - Added references to RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures
>
>           The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest
>           proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can
>           find the full proposal and impact analysis at:
>           https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02
>
>           And the draft documents at:
>           https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/
> proposals/2017-02/draft
>
>           As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of
>           this four-week Review Phase is to continue discussing the
>           proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to
>           review the full draft policy document.
>
>           At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine
>           whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore
>           important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a
>           restatement of your input from the previous phase.
>
>           We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft
>           document, and share your comments on <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
> <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
>           before 16 February 2018.
>
>           Kind regards,
>
>           Marco Schmidt
>           Policy Development Officer
>           RIPE NCC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20180119/cfe5af83/attachment.html>