[db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
denis
ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Nov 2 22:05:38 CET 2016
Hi Gert On 02/11/2016 11:02, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 10:53:35AM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: >> I would propose to fix this and add an abuse-c to resource objects >> that would be "more specific" than the org abuse-c and overrides it. > Please! > > The need to add extra org objects just to delegate abuse handling to > other teams for specific networks has annoyed me from day one of abuse-c:, > to the extent that I've just not done so. > > To repeat that: the current approach is so annoying that people that > are *willing* to provide better abuse contact data shy away from doing so, > because "why bother". As co author of the current abuse-c I have been saying for years that I agree with you. There are problems that were not foreseen with the original design. Adding abuse-c to the resource objects is one way to fix it, but there are also other (better/worse) options. These have been discussed several times but no one ever agrees or makes a decision. It is like the out of region ROUTE objects. We keep having the same discussion, consider the same options and never make a decision. Maybe it is a task for the new chairs of the DB WG to bring some of these issues to a conclusion. cheers denis > > Gert Doering > -- speaking as a LIR tech-c and abuse-c -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20161102/b3b63be3/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]