- anti-abuse-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Gert Doering 18 Mar '18

18 Mar '18

Hi, On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 10:53:55AM +0200, ox wrote: > To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a > better place. > > If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources > such a resource holder should also be responsible about the operations > of such scarce public resources. In which way, exactly, would this proposal have an effect to achieve this goal (a goal that I share, to state it explicitly)? I maintain the position that those that do care can be reached today, and those that do not care will find ways to fulfill the letter of the policy, and not change their ways. So, to repeat Malcolm's position: if we introduce new work for the NCC and the LIRs, does it improve things enough to be the right thing to do? (As a side note, we recently were contacted by the NCC because one of our 'sponsoring LIR' customers had changed their primary domain and forgot to update their contact details in the RIPE DB, thus, making them unreachable. Someone noticed, complained to the NCC, the NCC contacted the sponsoring LIR, and contact details were corrected. Things seem to work today where people care...) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 1

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

3 2

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

7 11

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 16 Mar '18

16 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Brian Nisbet 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

Morning, What we’re discussing right now is the policy as proposed and the NCC’s implementation plan. We’ve had discussion at an earlier point in regards to additional methods of verification, however it was made clear that there would be marked opposition to things that required human interaction in this way. With this in mind we are proceeding on this basis. Obviously if you would like to propose an alternative, then the WG Co-Chairs and the RIPE Policy Development Office are very happy to assist you with this. Thanks, Brian Brian Nisbet Network Operations Manager HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland +35316609040 brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 From: anti-abuse-wg <anti-abuse-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Name Sent: Thursday 15 March 2018 00:40 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net>; anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 "If this policy change reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will proactively validate whether the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute is valid." No it doesn't. How does RIPE loading a system that checks whether a mail server exists even need a change to policy? There is nothing listed in this "policy" that even needs to be implemented as policy. From what is said, RIPE will not check whether an abuse mailbox is valid, but whether a mail server exists at a domain specified. Mail server exists ≠ valid abuse mailbox attribute -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net<mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net>> Date: Thu, March 15, 2018 2:02 am To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net<mailto:anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Dear Malcolm, On 2018-03-14 14:47:13 CET, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > On 14/03/2018 13:32, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Please let me reiterate that the RIPE NCC will not activate the > > closure procedure simply for failure to maintain the "abuse-mailbox:" > > attribute. > > > > The closure procedure could be activated if the resource holder refuses > > to provide correct abuse contact information or is unresponsive over a > > longer period (during which the RIPE NCC will have made several attemps > > to contact the resource holder via different channels). > > Marco, > > Thank you for your detailed mail. However I do not understand how the > two sentences quoted above are consistent with each other. Is it that > you won't activate the closure procedure *solely* for failure to > maintain abuse-mailbox, but might activate it if this was compounded > with some other breach? > > How would you feel if the policy was amended to say something along the > lines of > > "For the pupose of RIPE-676 paragraph 1.6.2.1.1 (Violation of RIPE > Policys and RIPE NCC Procedures), failure to maintain the abuse-mailbox > attribute shall not be deemed sufficient reason to terminate the SSA in > itself, but may be deemed an aggravating factor contributing towards a > decision to terminate the SSA." I see how those two lines can be confusing when taken together - thank you for asking us to clarify. If this policy change reaches consensus, the RIPE NCC will proactively validate whether the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute is valid. If our automated validation indicates that the attribute is technically incorrect, we will contact the resource holder (directly or indirectly via the sponsoring LIR) and ask them to review and correct the "abuse-mailbox:" attribute. This is still outside of the closure and deregistration procedure. It would be the following actions of the resource holder that could lead to us activating the closure procedure - such as refusing to provide correct abuse contact information or remaining unresponsive over a longer period. This is already our current procedure when investigating incorrect contact information and this would not change if the policy change reaches consensus. Regarding potential amendments, it would be up to the Anti-Abuse Working Group to decide if these are worthwhile. But I am happy to provide the RIPE NCC's understanding based on the current version of the policy proposal as well as clarification on the current RIPE policy framework. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC > > Kind Regards, > > Malcolm. > > -- > Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 > Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog > London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ > > London Internet Exchange Ltd > Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ > > Company Registered in England No. 3137929 > Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
by Name 15 Mar '18

15 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
by Name 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

1 0

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02 & Next Steps
by Name 14 Mar '18

14 Mar '18

2 1