On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:29 AM ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote: [ clip ]
The current policy, “3.6. Annual Validation of ARIN’s Public Whois Point > of Contact Data” does not provide sufficient validation of the actual > availablility of the abuse mailbox. > RFC 2142 clearly identifies what mailboxes are used for what purposes. Most people have no idea about 2142 (et. Al.). I don't remember off the top of my head, but there may be more. Most of us had the common sense to use standard addresses for things such as neteng, noc, hostmaster and abuse since at least the 80's. The addresses that it recommended in 1997 have become de-facto standardized and ubiquitous. I don't know what isn't clear about abuse mapping and this proposal doesn't identify anything new. There is a long history of clearly understanding how this all works. There's nothing to see here in terms of confusion or misalignment of address to use especially with abuse@. I don't know that I have ever had an abuse@ bounce so the availability argument as a problem is weak. > > As a result, some resource-holders (LIRs and end-users) might not keep > this contact information up to date, or might use a non-responsive > mailbox which may be full or not actively monitored. Some may even > respond only to ARIN emails. > > I checked three ASN's that one could argue make up more than half the Internet. All had evidence of updated, valid Abuse points of contact. Job well done by ARIN. As well, the proposal seeks to define operations. Not our role. Opposed. Best, -M<
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.