[anti-abuse-wg] working in new version of 2019-04 (Validation of "abuse-mailbox")

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:02 AM Jeffrey Race <jrace at post.harvard.edu> wrote:

[...]

> Aside from the reciprocity issue, it's a basic engineering rule
> that systems target their goal only when a corrective
> feedback path exists.

That feedback path does not need to be a personally written e-mail.
Instead, it is possible to use signals like the absence of a reliable
reporting mechanism to make decisions about not accepting some or all
traffic from an abusing network.

My main concern with proposal 2019-04 is that it would make everyone
look the same. It then takes time and effort to distinguish the
networks that will actually use abuse reports to fix problems from
those that won't or just don't have the ability to do so.

While I would accept Gert's proposal for making abuse-c an optional
attribute, the reason I offered a counter proposal for publishing "a
statement to the effect that the network operator does not act on
abuse reports" is to add clarity at a high level.

In the first case, it avoids wasting resources lodging reports that
will be ignored. Secondly, it provides reliable statistical
information about the networks whose operators claim to use abuse
reports to clean things up. This would provide a metric that could be
used both by other network operators to guide operational policies and
governments or regulators to set theirs.

Finally, we don't yet know what the RIPE Database Requirements TF will
recommend. But I think that building a new business process on the
existing model for publishing contact information assumes they won't
recommend changes. Let's wait until they report before asking the RIPE
NCC to build new workflows on a model that the community might want to
change.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda