[anti-abuse-wg] Defining routing abuse

>
> ---- start ----
> A distinction can be made between accidental or deliberate hijacks
> from available routing datasets, looking at parameters such as
> duration, recurrence, possible goals, and the size of hijacked blocks.
> Other parameters may also be considered in the future.
> ---- end ----
>

Whoops, that was fun part my mind completely obsoleted and slipped out from
the current understanding of the proposal. As I've stated about a month ago
in one of original threads derived from message with the proposal, the
intention will be shadowed out, the better the large bad actor is. AFAICS
nobody have ever proposed clear 'intentional' distinction over entire set
of threads. To add another remark to this, even trusted 'expert' parties
could disagree on that subtle matter, making the punishing decision,
whatever it would be, with false positives and false negatives all over the
place. I'd suggest to remove any relations with behavior of human entities
from the draft at least, as even technical part of the proposal seem to be
very far from being objective.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20190413/36054e85/attachment.html>