[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Adrian
ripe-wg-antiabuse at kyubu.de
Thu Nov 24 14:08:39 CET 2011
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:51:24PM +0100, Tobias Knecht wrote: Hi, > > at by the end of the document why I should prefer an abuse-c attribute > > to an irt object. > > The IRT Object was degraded in the last few years. For example the > creation process was made pretty simple to allow more people to use it > as a abuse-c. The idea would be to go back to the original intent of an > IRT Object. So if you are running a cert I would suggest using the IRT, > if you are running an abuse department I would suggest using the abuse-c > and if you are running both, like many huge ISPs already do, I would > suggest to use both. This approach would be quite contrary to goals of the proposal (such as: ".. it helps all kinds of institutions to find the correct abuse contact information more easily"). Most users cannot distinguish between a CERT or an abuse department. Also, I cannot see why implementing another object holding the same data as an IRT would make things better. Cheers, Adrian
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 New Policy Proposal (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]