<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>I think we are talking about the same, 48 hours (not including weekends, as indicated in my email), is 2 working days.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I don’t think more is needed, this is the explanation:<o:p></o:p><ul style='margin-top:0cm' type=disc><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>If you are monitoring an abuse-inbox, you should make this in a daily basis<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>I agree that it may happen that one day you have a trouble, but two consecutive days?<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Typically, this mailbox should be a list of people handling it, so even if one of them is ill or whatever, someone else will do the job<o:p></o:p></li><li class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:0cm;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'>Typically, this mailbox should have VERY FEW emails, otherwise, you have a big problem in your network, maybe allowing customers to use it for spam, criminal activities, etc.<o:p></o:p></li></ul><o:p> </o:p>Even more than that, if you’re a LIR, typically you have also people working on weekends and bank holidays, so not including the weekend in the 48 hours is already something that should not be necessary, but I thing is fair for LIRs which are SMEs, or that don’t offer services to third parties, so they don’t have 24-365 staff taking care of their network.<o:p></o:p><div> Regards,<o:p></o:p></div>Jordi<o:p></o:p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>De: Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 10:28 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><a name="_MailOriginalBody">Hi Jordi,<o:p></o:p></a><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>A period of 48 hours looks too short to me, I suggest something like within a period of 2 working days (or even more).<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Regards,<o:p></o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div>Arash<o:p></o:p><div><o:p> </o:p></div><div><o:p> </o:p></div></div></div><div><o:p> </o:p><div>On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 5:44 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'>I fully agree with this proposal and should be implemented ASAP. HOWEVER, I’ve a question regarding the impact analysis, and specially this sentence: “To increase efficiency, this process will use an automated solution that will allow the validation of “abuse-mailbox:” attributes without sending an email. No action will be needed by resource holders that have configured their “abuse-mailbox:” attribute correctly.” Reading the policy proposal, how the NCC concludes that it should be “without sending an email”? I will say that the right way to do a validation (at creation/modification and yearly) is, in a way that makes sense (having an email that nobody is processing is exactly the same as not having the abuse attribute at all): 1) Send an email with a link that must be clicked by a human (so some kind of captcha-like mechanism should be followed) 2) If this link is not clicked in a period of 48 hours (not including Saturday-Sunday), an alarm should be generated so the NCC can take the relevant actions and make sure that the mailbox is actively monitored by the LIR Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: policy-announce <<a href="mailto:policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net">policy-announce-bounces@ripe.net</a>> en nombre de Marco Schmidt <<a href="mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net">mschmidt@ripe.net</a>> Fecha: jueves, 18 de enero de 2018, 12:23 Para: <<a href="mailto:policy-announce@ripe.net">policy-announce@ripe.net</a>> Asunto: [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)<o:p></o:p><div><div> Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" is now in the Review Phase. The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly validate "abuse-c:" information and to follow up in cases where the attribute is deemed to be incorrect. This proposal has been updated following the last round of discussion and is now at version v2.0. Some of the differences from version v1.0 include: - A focus on validating the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute and fixing incorrect contact information - Added references to RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this latest proposal version to support the community’s discussion. You can find the full proposal and impact analysis at: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02</a> And the draft documents at: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02/draft" target="_blank">https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02/draft</a> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Review Phase is to continue discussing the proposal, taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft policy document. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft<o:p></o:p></div></div> document, and share your comments on <<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net">anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net</a>> before 16 February 2018. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? <a href="http://www.consulintel.es" target="_blank">http://www.consulintel.es</a> 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. <o:p></o:p></blockquote></div><o:p> </o:p></div></div> ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es 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. </body></html>