Hi,
My understanding was that the object / field would be used / assigned in any allocations of IP space. Can someone please explain to me how it is possible that an organisation could have IPs but not have an email address or website? And if that is the case, then shouldn't the next level up be taking responsibility for abuse of the resources? Or am I missing something?
Fully agree. Thats why for all direct allocations the abuse-c will be mandatory. For everybody else it will be optional. The hierarchy and the mandatory abuse-c at the top of the chain will give us at least one abuse contact per ip address, which is the absolute minimum. And I fully agree to the part with the responsibility. There must be one party that can and takes responsibility for abuseive behavior. If they feel they are the wrong persons they have to explain their subdelegation that they need to publish an abuse-c and handle the traffic themselves.
I like the suggestion that the field be a URL that can be either a mailto or a http. I don't really care if some reporters have issues with this or not - I don't work for them and they're not paying me or anyone else - in fact many of them are getting paid .. so .. I also have issues with a lot of the automated reporting tools that some people insist on using, but that's off topic :)
I really like this idea, but at the moment I would rather stay with abuse-mailbox as an email and add an abuse-url: or similar later. The reason is, that we can not foresee what will happen in the near future and nobody knows if API reporting is something that will show up. At the moment all institutions (maawg, IETF, APWG, ...) are working on reporting and use email based transport. So we should stay with that and not offer for publication of things that are not even here and not nearly standardized or even used in a real world scenario.
I strongly oppose any "non responsive" type label being used. That will cause a lot of issues for LIRs and will do little to advance the anti-abuse ethic
Fully agree. Thanks, Tobias