Re: [sig-policy] prop-079: Abuse contact information (abuse-c)
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
>
>