[acm-tf] Abuse Contact Information - Policy Proposal
Alessandro Vesely vesely at tana.it
Mon Oct 17 19:02:12 CEST 2011
On 17/Oct/11 15:39, Brian Nisbet wrote: > "Alessandro Vesely" wrote the following on 17/10/2011 12:23: >> A couple of notes... >> >> On 15/Oct/11 13:18, Tobias Knecht wrote: >>> >>> Policy Text >>> >>> This is a proposal to introduce a new (mandatory) contact >>> attribute named "abuse-c:", which can be referenced by inetnum, >>> inet6num and aut-num objects. The "abuse-c:" reference to an >>> abuse handler should make use of the hierarchical nature of the >>> resource data to minimize the workload on resource holders and >>> facilitate good database design. >> >> It is not clear from that text that we want abuse-c to be inherited. >> IMHO, optimizations and database principles should be considered a >> fortunate coincidence. The semantic point is that we consider ISPs >> responsible for the kind of traffic that their customers operate. >> (The recent A2B vs Spamhaus story may illustrate this concept.) > > I would have said that we want it to be inheritable, rather than > inherited by conceptual default. My understanding is that an ISP, maintainer of the whois record, should not thoughtlessly override the default. To wit, the hierarchical nature of the resource data is built after reality, not the other way around. > I may have misinterpreted the feeling of the TF, but this is > something we'll have to be very careful about and "responsible" is > a big word. If this is phrased or spun in such a way that people > believe that it will make them and all of their networks > immediately responsible for traffic coming from a separate AS & PI > block that they route, I think we won't even get out of the > starting gate. Absolutely agreed. I said "responsible" in the sense of being awake at the wheel, not "liable". But you're right that that word may have disrupting effects. I'll use "not-automated" in my reply to Tobias, which is the most watered-down synonym that I can think of.
[ Acm-tf Archives ]