[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

Alexander,

Thanks for this. 

I'd just like to clarify something, are you objecting wholly to this proposal because you would prefer stronger/more complex checks? In that you feel it doesn't go far enough?

Thanks,

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG

Brian Nisbet 
Network Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

> -----Original Message-----
> From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of
> Alexander Isavnin
> Sent: 27 March 2018 13:46
> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
> 
> Dear Brian, colleagues!
> 
> I would like to remind about one of my objections:
> This policy will not seriously improve data quality, because it allows to check
> only one field in database.
> If one wants really to improve data quality by automated checks, more
> complicated policy should be developed.
> 
> Also, may i suggest to run "the method by which they(NCC) would plan to
> implement this proposal" once, to display current situation with abuse-c in
> database?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Alexander Isavnin
> 
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum