[anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] oppose 2017-02 "Regular abuse-c Validation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Thu Sep 14 14:29:19 CEST 2017
In either case the numbers will speak for themselves and any comments without seeing them are going to be premature. Never mind the RIPE NCC staff effort costing – does someone have numbers on the # of ASNs with invalid abuse-c information, and whether there are significant clusters of such ASNs downstream of individual ISPs / LIRs? --srs On 14/09/17, 5:56 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <nick at foobar.org> wrote: Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I am sure an impact assessment would work – my point was that a lot > of the criticism so far has been jumping to conclusions over the > impact. That's not an unreasonable comment, but the flip side is also true: the policy makes an a-priori assumption that this is the best approach for dealing with abuse contact management in the circumstances, without providing or considering any evidence for or against. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2017-02 New Policy Proposal (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] oppose 2017-02 "Regular abuse-c Validation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]