Hello all,
IRT object has never been formally introduced to the APNIC community,
hence the absence of any reference to it on our public website. There
was an invitation in 2003 to discuss it in APNIC meetings, but the
interest was pretty low at that time.
Having said that, APNIC whois which is based on RIPE's whois software
has a built-in support for IRT objects.
We currently have 0 (none) irt object registered in APNIC database.
APNIC secretariat is following this discussion closely and will, as
usual, implement what the community decides.
Cheers,
________________________________________________________________________
Sanjaya email: sanjaya@apnic.net
Services Area Manager, APNIC sip: sanjaya@voip.apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net phone: +61 7 3858 3100
________________________________________________________________________
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
On 2/02/2010 2:54 PM, stsuruma@bb.softbank.co.jp wrote:
Hi Tobias,
-----Original Message-----
Hi Satoru,
that would be easier, but we will have the same problems again.
(1) unpopulated IRT Object.
yes.
but I counld't estimate of these impact, how many members are use IRT object,
how much spent to unpopulate it, etc..
We need a comment from APNIC staff about these operations.
(2) more than 1 place for the real abuse contact.
The description of e-mail field in 'whois -h whois.apnic.net -- "-v person" ' say that
e-mail address in a Person Object seems to be filtered if abuse-mailbox is not NULL.
(umm,Is it correct?)
Is it not enough?
(3) possibility of unaccurate data.
I think this issue are not solved by both your proposal and my idea.
regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki
Softbank BB Corp.
I think this will be a lot of work for APNIC, but it would
clean up the db quiet a bit and make things much clearer and easier.
Thanks,
Tobias
stsuruma@bb.softbank.co.jp schrieb:
Hi Tobias,
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
management policy *
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
