[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 implementation schedule
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Oct 22 10:10:26 CEST 2012
Which, considering what nobody implies, is a lovely way to circumvent the grand intentions this proposal has. Talk about leading horses to water versus making them drink --srs (htc one x) On Oct 22, 2012 1:37 PM, "Jørgen Hovland" <jorgen at hovland.cx> wrote: > 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<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<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<https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/mntner/IWERK-MNT.html> >> > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20121022/2bc258d5/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c mandatory
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] abuse-c implementation schedule
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]