Which, considering what nobody implies, is a lovely way to circumvent the grand intentions this proposal has. Talk about leading horses to water versus making them drink --srs (htc one x) <div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 22, 2012 1:37 PM, "Jørgen Hovland" <<a href="mailto:jorgen@hovland.cx">jorgen@hovland.cx</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Hello, I think you might be misunderstanding how mandatory contact information works. As you can see, the mandatory e-mail field is set to <a href="mailto:nobody@accelerated.de" target="_blank">nobody@accelerated.de</a> When abuse-c e-mail will become mandatory, their abuse-c e-mail will continue to be <a href="mailto:nobody@accelerated.de" target="_blank">nobody@accelerated.de</a>. On 10/22/12 09:58, U.Mutlu wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> As everybody knows, the proposal "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database" has already been ratified/accepted more than a month ago, but still some RIPE workers seem not to know this fact: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06</a> Authors: Tobias Knecht, abusix Proposal Version: 3.0 06 June 2012 Accepted: 17 September 2012 Working Group: Anti-Abuse Working Group Proposal type: New Policy term: Indefinite New RIPE Document: ripe-563 Under §1.0 it says "The "abuse-c:" will be mandatory for all aut-nums. Due the hierarchical nature of IP address objects, at least every direct allocated inetnum and inet6num needs to have an "abuse-c:". Inherited objects might have their own "abuse-c:" attribute or they will be covered by the higher level objects. " Today I got the following reply from RIPE (I removed the name of the sender with XXX, but can give it if required). Why is this person at RIPE still saying this: "At this moment is the 'abuse-c' not yet a mandatory field. There is currently a discussion on our mailing list in order to make this a mandatory field, but this policy proposal is still under discussion." ??? An official from RIPE please explain to the community what this RIPE person means with such a statement...: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: NCC#2012103209 abuse-c for inetnum 84.200.75.0 - 84.200.75.127 missing Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:32:35 +0200 From: RIPE NCC <<a href="mailto:ncc@ripe.net" target="_blank">ncc@ripe.net</a>> Reply-To: RIPE NCC <<a href="mailto:ncc@ripe.net" target="_blank">ncc@ripe.net</a>> To: U.Mutlu <<a href="mailto:security@mutluit.com" target="_blank">security@mutluit.com</a>> Dear madam/sir, Thank you for your e-mail. At this moment is the 'abuse-c' not yet a mandatory field. There is currently a discussion on our mailing list in order to make this a mandatory field, but this policy proposal is still under discussion. You can find the contact details that we have on file at: <a href="http://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/person-role/ACC-RIPE.html" target="_blank">http://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/person-role/ACC-RIPE.html</a> And: <a href="https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/mntner/IWERK-MNT.html" target="_blank">https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/mntner/IWERK-MNT.html</a> </blockquote> </blockquote></div>