[anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c mandatory
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c mandatory
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c mandatory
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Mon Oct 22 10:12:39 CEST 2012
Hello, I think you might be misunderstanding how mandatory contact information works. As you can see, the mandatory e-mail field is set to nobody at accelerated.de When abuse-c e-mail will become mandatory, their abuse-c e-mail will continue to be nobody at accelerated.de. On 10/22/12 09:58, U.Mutlu wrote: > 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: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06 > 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 <ncc at ripe.net> > Reply-To: RIPE NCC <ncc at ripe.net> > To: U.Mutlu <security at mutluit.com> > > > 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: > > http://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/person-role/ACC-RIPE.html > > And: > > https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/mntner/IWERK-MNT.html
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c mandatory
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c mandatory
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]