Alexander, Thanks for this. I'd just like to clarify something, are you objecting wholly to this proposal because you would prefer stronger/more complex checks? In that you feel it doesn't go far enough? Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG 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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
-----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Isavnin Sent: 27 March 2018 13:46 To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Dear Brian, colleagues!
I would like to remind about one of my objections: This policy will not seriously improve data quality, because it allows to check only one field in database. If one wants really to improve data quality by automated checks, more complicated policy should be developed.
Also, may i suggest to run "the method by which they(NCC) would plan to implement this proposal" once, to display current situation with abuse-c in database?
Kind regards, Alexander Isavnin
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum