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/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Thu Mar 21 14:24:07 CET 2019
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 01:56:11PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >I'm not ever sure if this is related to Retroactivity, so will need to look if it fits better in the previous section. > >"A hijacking event will be only considered as a case for the experts while persisting or within a maximum period of 6 months since ceased." I'd actually like a straight answer to the following question (so far what I've read is contradictory and somewhat evasive): Is it, or is it not, the goal of this proposal to change the RIPE NCC's processes for dealing with policy violations to enable the RIPE NCC to punish historical policy violations as opposed to repairing ongoing policy violations? rgds, SL >Regards, >Jordi > > > >El 21/3/19 11:38, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg" <anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net> escribió: > > > Thanks for the input! > > Trying to "retouch" 5.0: > ======== > 5.0 Retroactivity > > Only hijacking events that occur after this policy has been implemented > are eligible to be considered. > > Evidence older than 18 months (counted from the date where a report is > filed) should be disregarded by experts. > ======== > > Best Regards, > Carlos > > > On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:18:02AM +0000, Carlos Friaças wrote: > > > > Dear Carlos, > > > >> What would be reasonable for you? > >> > >> 2 or 3 years before the date when the report is filed? > > > > I was thinking more about weeks not years. Mostly due to the nature of > > the incident(s) itself. However, I'm not strongly opposed to 2y term. > > > > Piotr > > > > -- > > Piotr Strzy?ewski > > Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre > > Gliwice, Poland > > > > > >********************************************** >IPv4 is over >Are you ready for the new Internet ? >http://www.theipv6company.com >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. > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2019-03 New Policy Proposal (BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy Violation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]