Dear SIG members
The Problem statement "Registration of detailed assignment information
in whois DB" has been assigned a Policy Proposal number following the
submission of a new version sent to the Policy SIG for consideration.
The proposal, "prop-115-v001: Registration of detailed assignment
inf
Dear Colleagues,
And, here is prop-115. No comment has not been made for this proposal.
If reached consensus, it may needs significant change for whois database.
I just reviewed implementation impact assessment by the Secretariat,
and it says it might take more than 6 months.
I think same thing w
I don’t believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what
implementation would likely
cost.
First, I am sincerely hoping that CGN is an extremely temporary situation. I’m
not sure
it should be worth the effort to recode the registry to support it.
Second, I’m wondering if there’s any
Yeah I think this is a bit of a radical proposal to accept at present.
I'm not convinced we should be supporting CGN in this way, nor am I a
fan of seeing more and more information make it into Whois which might
not be the best place.
I would like to hear more from Hiromi-san about the problem sta
Dean,
I totally agree that we should focus on the problem statement itself in
Fukuoka
since this problem statement has something new concept for Policy SIG
and Fukuoka will be first meeting.
However, I don't think this proposal needs to be withdrawn to focus on the
problem statement in Fukuoka.
I look forward to hearing more from the author.
At present I do not support this proposal.
On Wednesday, 25 February 2015, Masato Yamanishi wrote:
> Dean,
>
> I totally agree that we should focus on the problem statement itself in
> Fukuoka
> since this problem statement has something new conce
I am currently neither in favour or opposed to this proposal, but I
would like to ask for a point of clarification...
Is the author suggesting that new fields in the whois be added to
allow this funtionality?
It would seem that this is something which operators could choose to
implement today usi
Hi Dean,
Hiromi-san will reply soon, but as you wrote, we think using 'remarks' field
will be one option to achieve our goals.
Yours Sincerely,
--
Tomohiro Fujisaki
From: Dean Pemberton
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] New Version of prop-115-v001: Registration of
detailed assignment info
Personally,I don't see any benefit,which community may be getting after
accepting this proposal. I don't support this proposal.
Regards,
Ajai Kumar
On 24 February 2015 at 22:41, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I don’t believe the proposal offers enough benefit to be worth what
> implementation would likely
I do not support this proposal, on the basis that it seems its intent is
to extend the scope of the APNIC whois database well beyond its
traditional scope.
I believe the purpose of the APNIC database is to assert the
authorisation of an assignee to use specified IP addresses, for purposes
s
Hello Owen and list,
Thanks for your interest to our proposal.
I don't cost much for implementing in execution of the proposal such
making additional filed or other.
But some operators actually see the whois DB and IRR DB to confirm the
attack vector with its IP address. When set filter by IP ad
Hello again,
I think to operators set filters by IP address when they get assumed
attack from outside of their network. At this point, IP address range is
very important. Isn't this common thing
Please advise me if I fall into a corner case.
Regards,
On 2015/03/01 21:30, Ajay Kumar wrote:
>
Hello David,
Yes, it is what I want to the list.
I wanted to know about this question, is this proposal beyond the scope
of using whois db?
But if it is so, I want to have opinions where is the best place to
discuss and what we can choose for universal common information resource
to check?
Regard
Hi Dean and list,
I don't want to add more implementation to the whois DB.
Currently I thought remarks field as you mentioned.
But at this case, to using remarks field for detailed information,
guidelines and help message/warning/alert would be changed.
To inform this among member Registries(and
I simply don’t see this as at all likely to have the desired effect.
When ISPs put an abuse block in, it’s a very high-overhead thing to do.
Generally,
in order to maximize the probability that the problem will get resolved at the
source,
while minimizing the odds of having to play whack-a-mole,
15 matches
Mail list logo
