Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-24 Thread Kurt Erik Lindqvist
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-09-24, at 00.18, Joe Abley wrote: > On 23 Sep 2004, at 18:06, Matt Ghali wrote: > >> Effectively none. >> APNIC has always served out unverified and obvious garbage from their >> whois servers. > > And they are different from every other RIR

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-24 Thread Michael . Dillon
> So list yourself as the contact (but not the network owner) rather > than him. > I see no reason why there should not be some flexibility in the whois > data regarding who is listed as a contact for what purpose, the extent > of information required for listed contacts, etc. I proposed a revis

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Andrew - Supernews
> "Matthew" == Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Matthew> The truth is, it doesn't even need to be a case of "grandma" Matthew> listed in the whois (though that is a legitimate issue these Matthew> days). If as an ISP, I list "Bob's Flower Market" (which has Matthew> a DSL line

Re: [nanog] Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Ted Hardie
Note that draft-daigle-rfc954bis-01.txt was approved and is sitting in the RFC Editor's queue. It removes all of the policy language in RFC 954, but is otherwise the same (and it will likewise be issued as a Draft Standard, the current status of RFC 954). regards,

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread william(at)elan.net
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 05:56:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff) > > concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know > > about anybody else, but

RE: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Matthew Kaufman
The truth is, it doesn't even need to be a case of "grandma" listed in the whois (though that is a legitimate issue these days). If as an ISP, I list "Bob's Flower Market" (which has a DSL line and IP addresses for every cash register and order-fulfillment machine) in whois, all that does is: A

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Leo Bicknell
In a message written on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 05:56:42PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff) > concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know > about anybody else, but I've never had any luck getting a response from >

RE: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Matthew Kaufman
Ok, I'll bite... I find the idea that an ISP must publish customer information offensive. There is no reason why a guy who wants to get a T-1 into his house and a /24 to support all the stuff he's doing at home should be forced to publish his full name and home address to the world (or worse, sho

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Joe Abley
On 23 Sep 2004, at 18:06, Matt Ghali wrote: Effectively none. APNIC has always served out unverified and obvious garbage from their whois servers. And they are different from every other RIR in this respect how? Joe

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Matt Ghali
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 17:56:42 -0400, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff) > concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know > about anybody else, but I've never had any luck getting a response from > people i

Re: [nanog] Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Joe Abley
On 23 Sep 2004, at 16:36, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-ipwhois.php There you go. They do this, they're in violation of RFC 954. RFC 954 is a description of how one whois service, "running on the SRI-NIC machine (26.0.0.73 or 10.0.0.51)". How can any other whois

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Joe Abley
On 23 Sep 2004, at 16:20, Matt Ghali wrote: Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do? I guess the answer is yes, but I'm interested to know why. The proposal (which comes from APNIC members, not from APNIC staff) concerns non-portable addresses assigned to end-users. I don't know about an

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Henry Linneweh
This proposal would be harmful in tracking hack attacks, ddos attacks and other forms of annoyance, spyware tracking and things that are beyond the capability for any agency to handle because of largese Technical fiefdoms were one of the worries of the 90's now we are here and that is becoming th

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Dan Hollis
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > But that will also depend on how APNIC responds to problems. If > Network X has a customer who is a problem, and we can't find out > customer's name / e-mail / whatever, then Network X better be > responsive. If not, then APNIC better be respons

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread william(at)elan.net
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19 +1000, George Michaelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC > > approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment > > records. The proposal

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Gary E. Miller
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Matt! On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote: > Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do? Yes, the spammers are gonna love this. RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim

Re: [nanog] Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Dan Mahoney, System Admin
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote: Oh look. http://rfc-ignorant.org/policy-ipwhois.php There you go. They do this, they're in violation of RFC 954. And there's already a blacklist ready and waiting. -Dan Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do? matt ghali On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Patrick W Gilmore
On Sep 23, 2004, at 4:20 PM, Matt Ghali wrote: Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do? Dunno if "offensive" is the right word. "Worrisome", definitely. Maybe after I have time to understand it better, it might become offensive. But that will also depend on how APNIC responds to proble

Re: [nanog] Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Dan Mahoney, System Admin
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Matt Ghali wrote: Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do? matt ghali I think at this point it becomes a matter of "if they're not listed, blacklist them". It could potentially be a huge filter set, but there's so much crap coming from that corner of the globe anyway

Re: APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-23 Thread Matt Ghali
Does anyone else find this as offensive as I do? matt ghali On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:19:19 +1000, George Michaelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC > approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment > records.

APNIC Privacy of customer assignment records - implementation update

2004-09-22 Thread George Michaelson
Dear colleagues, This is an important announcement on the implementation of APNIC approved proposal prop-007-v001 regarding privacy of customer assignment records. The proposal document, presentation, minutes, and discussion are available at: http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/proposals/pr