[anti-abuse-wg] 2010-08 New Policy Proposal (Abuse contact information)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Global design (Abuse contact information)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] There is no email contact to report spam
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Fri Nov 12 11:56:17 CET 2010
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 03:26:23PM +0100, Tobias Knecht wrote: Hi Tobias > But nevertheless: > > Is there any other concern or positive feedback about making the IRT > Object mandatory? > > Is there any other concern or positive feedback using the IRT Object? > > Are there any other concerns or positive feedback? > > Are there any other questions or suggestions? Yes. Why not introduce mandatory abuse-mailbox field into inet(6)num and aut-num? - This meet the need for single place for abuse contact information. - The inet(6)num and aut-num has no whois server query restrictions. - The inet(6)num and aut-num are already existing. Syntax change would be probably easy to implement for RIPE NCC. - The non-mandatory IRT object could still be used for mature, well established IRT teams. - Reduced resource consumption: there will be no extra objects in DB (we save some disk space) and there will be no extra references (we save some whois servers' processors time). Both means: we save some money. :) - IRT object still can be used as it is used right now (if LIR want's to monitor abuse, even if the inet(6)num or aut-num is handled by its customer) This is of course not connected with leaving or not abuse-mailbox in person/role/organisation object types. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Global design (Abuse contact information)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] There is no email contact to report spam
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]