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/db-wg@ripe.net/

[db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Peter Koch pk at DENIC.DE
Wed Jul 3 08:48:25 CEST 2013

On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 10:40:18PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote:

> I wouldn't want to challenge the policy process based on my inattention,
> but considering that the policy text explicitely mentions inetnum and
> aut-num, I never understood the proposed implementation as the only way,
> only as a facilitating workaround to inetnum-referenced abuse-c. But
> that's probably only me...

no

-Peter

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c + org

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]