I agree to clarify the abuse POC.
but your idea below, it seems to be many change the whois DB.
How about chang the "abuse-mailbox" field to be a mandatory?
It will be able to implement with small change to whois DB.
--
Satoru Tsurumaki
Softbank BB Corp.
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Tobias Knecht
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:41 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-079: Abuse contact information
(abuse-c)
Hallo everybody,
first of all thanks to all the people that have joined the
discussion of this proposal.
There were loads of good ideas and I have learned a lot about
different things.
I'm sorry that I have to say, that I made a mistake. I didn't
know about the IRT-Object in the APNIC database. I knew about
APNIC using the same DB as RIPE, but I thought the IRT was
not implemented in the APNIC database. (Thanks to Terry Manderson)
With this knowledge my proposal would have been different.
But it is not to late to change the actual proposal. But I
want to summarize the discussed things and ask for your
opinion and than change the proposal.
Makes more sense and saves time.
The ideas that will follow are very similar to them we are
working on for RIPE at the moment.
(1) Make the IRT-Object mandatory.
(2) Make the abuse-mailbox field within the IRT-Object mandatory.
The reason is: e-mail field is the contact address for humans
and the abuse-mailbox field is the contact address for reports.
(3) Request frequent updates of the IRT-Object (or more) and "force"
owners to publish correct data (check email addresses, ...).
(4) Make abuse-mailbox fields unavailable in every other role
or person object. Because it's not needed anymore.
(5) Make trouble fields unavailable. Because it's not needed anymore.
How about this quit different version? And sorry again for
not knowing about the IRT Object.
Thanks,
Tobias
