Re: [sig-policy] prop-079: Abuse contact information (abuse-c)
> -----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 at bb.softbank dot co dot 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 at lists dot apnic dot net
> >> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Tobias
> >> Knecht
> >> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:41 PM
> >> To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot 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
> >>
> >>
> > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource
> management policy *
> > _______________________________________________
> > sig-policy mailing list
> > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>