Hi,
On Fri 21/Jan/2022 19:40:40 +0100 denis walker wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 13:03, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
The idea is to add extra addresses to assignment objects, irrespective of the
resource holder, based on the wish of its customer who is actually connected to
the resource. Would that be at all possible?
When you say " irrespective of the resource holder, based on the wish
of its customer" do you mean without their consent or control? That is
not possible as they maintain the assignment object. I would also say
it is not desirable. That would allow an abuser to override the
resource holders abuse-c and ignore all abuse reports.
Yes, I meant extra attributes linked to the assignment object. If it's not
possible let's just forget it.
And, if yes, would it be acceptable by the resource holder or are there
contractual impediments? Finally, if feasibility is ok, would operators
take advantage of it or is it only me? >
If you are talking about adding extra abuse addresses to assignment
objects by agreement with the resource holder, as I explained, that is
possible now by simply adding an abuse-c to the assignment .
Except that I don't have write access to the assignment object.
Best
Ale
--
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
