Hi Alessandro,
El 12/5/20 19:26, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
<anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de ves...@tana.it> escribió:
Hi Jordy,
On Tue 12/May/2020 11:34:19 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
>> El 8/5/20 20:18, "anti-abuse-wg en nombre de Alessandro Vesely"
<anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net en nombre de ves...@tana.it> escribió:
>> On Fri 08/May/2020 13:28:10 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>>>
>>> As I've indicated already several times (and not just in this
discussion), all the RIRs have forms or other methods to escalate any issues.
>>>
>>> The proposal is only changing "let's have stats".
>>
>>
>> I read:
>>
>> The RIPE NCC will validate the “abuse-mailbox:” attribute at
least
>> annually. Where the attribute is deemed incorrect, it will
follow up in
>> compliance with relevant RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedures.
>>
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
>>
>> The anonymized statistics is mentioned afterward. It seems to
result from
>> community escalation and reporting, rather than from the
abuse-mailbox
>> validation itself. By my proposal, instead, the output of the
validation
>> process is borne out when the abuse address is removed from the
database —and
>> the corresponding IP ranges duly transmitted.
>
> [Jordi] Yes, RIPE provide stats for many things and probably this text is
> not really needed, but if we want to make sure to have this specific set
of
> stats, *we need the text*. If we try to reach consensus in what I'm
> interpreting from your last half of the paragraph, it is very difficult to
> get consensus, and reclaiming resources must be only done in my opinion,
in
> extreme cases. What cases are already described in
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-716, not specific to abuse
> cases.
You misunderstood me. I'm not advocating de-registration of IP resources.
I
meant to remove just the abuse-c email address, since it does not work. As
an
alternative, as Àngel noted, there could be a tag saying that the email
address
is not valid, without actually removing it.
[Jordi] I got your point now, thanks!
I think it is more useful instead of removing the address, marking the record
as invalid, and this is being done if I recall correctly from RIPE NCC
presentations. Because it may be a temporary failure of the address, so *not
removing it* may bring it back in a subsequent verification.
Of course all this depends on the detailed procedure that RIPE NCC is using,
but I don't think having so many operational details is good in a policy,
unless (I'm not saying is the case, just speaking in general, and not about
this specific policy) RIPE NCC is doing so badly and ignoring the community
inputs, that the community can only enforce a specific procedure via a policy
proposal - but still needs to reach consensus. In one of my earlier versions of
the proposal, I had a detailed "example procedure, not part of the policy text".
Knowing if an abuse team is reachable is much more useful than statistics
which
onehas to interpret in order to derive the same information. Setting that
information has to be done with care, after making sure that the
corresponding
organization has acknowledged that their abuse-c doesn't work and doesn't
seem
to be after fixing it.
[Jordi] I think both are useful to know. Is the address valid/invalid. If
valid, is this LIR processing abuse reports or there is information escalated
from the community that is not?
At that point, actions like transmitting the relevant IP ranges to a DNSBL
can
take place. Such actions are derived from a public database and don't have
to
be carried out by RIPE NCC. In particular, they imply no termination.
[Jordi] Totally agree. I still think ideally, we should have X-ARF as the
single way to do all the abuse reporting. Not sure if this could be also
connected to provide feedback to DNSBL, but I'm not convinced RIPE NCC (or any
other RIR) could do that ... very difficult to reach consensus on that at the
time being. The stats might prove that on the long term and then we can change
our minds.
Best
Ale
--
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
