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 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
* 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