Which, considering what nobody implies, is a lovely way to circumvent the grand intentions this proposal has. Talk about leading horses to water versus making them drink --srs (htc one x) On Oct 22, 2012 1:37 PM, "Jørgen Hovland" <jorgen@hovland.cx> wrote:

Hello,

I think you might be misunderstanding how mandatory contact information works. As you can see, the mandatory e-mail field is set to nobody@accelerated.de When abuse-c e-mail will become mandatory, their abuse-c e-mail will continue to be nobody@accelerated.de.

On 10/22/12 09:58, U.Mutlu wrote:

...

As everybody knows, the proposal "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database" has already been ratified/accepted more than a month ago, but still some RIPE workers seem not to know this fact:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/**policies/proposals/2011-06<https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-06> Authors: Tobias Knecht, abusix Proposal Version: 3.0 06 June 2012 Accepted: 17 September 2012 Working Group: Anti-Abuse Working Group Proposal type: New Policy term: Indefinite New RIPE Document: ripe-563

Under §1.0 it says "The "abuse-c:" will be mandatory for all aut-nums. Due the hierarchical nature of IP address objects, at least every direct allocated inetnum and inet6num needs to have an "abuse-c:". Inherited objects might have their own "abuse-c:" attribute or they will be covered by the higher level objects. "

Today I got the following reply from RIPE (I removed the name of the sender with XXX, but can give it if required). Why is this person at RIPE still saying this: "At this moment is the 'abuse-c' not yet a mandatory field. There is currently a discussion on our mailing list in order to make this a mandatory field, but this policy proposal is still under discussion."

??? An official from RIPE please explain to the community what this RIPE person means with such a statement...:

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: NCC#2012103209 abuse-c for inetnum 84.200.75.0 - 84.200.75.127 missing Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:32:35 +0200 From: RIPE NCC <ncc@ripe.net> Reply-To: RIPE NCC <ncc@ripe.net> To: U.Mutlu <security@mutluit.com>

Dear madam/sir,

Thank you for your e-mail.

At this moment is the 'abuse-c' not yet a mandatory field. There is currently a discussion on our mailing list in order to make this a mandatory field, but this policy proposal is still under discussion.

You can find the contact details that we have on file at:

http://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/**lookup/ripe/person-role/ACC-**RIPE.html<http://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/person-role/ACC-RIPE.html>

And:

https://apps.db.ripe.net/**whois/lookup/ripe/mntner/**IWERK-MNT.html<https://apps.db.ripe.net/whois/lookup/ripe/mntner/IWERK-MNT.html>

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC is working on the implementation plan. It requires changes to the core RIPE Database as well as several tools, such as Webupdates and the LIR Portal, and then finally the Abuse Finder Tool. Also some internal processes managed by the Registration and Customer Services Departments need modifying to include a check that an "abuse-c:" has been provided by a resource holder when requesting services. The RIPE NCC expects to have the plan ready for publishing to the community by mid November 2012. Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Group On 22/10/2012 10:22, Frank Gadegast wrote:

Hi all,

I would be interested, when its possible to create an abuse-c using the webtools in the LIR portal and when its possible to add the attribute to inetnums ...

Any implementation schedule available at RIPE NCC ?

Kind regards, Frank -- MOTD: "have you enabled SSL on a website or mailbox today ?" -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================

Arnold, On Monday, 2012-10-22 10:47:03 -0700, Arnold <wiegert@telus.net> wrote:

Please also try to ensure that the abuse-c field - aside from being non-blank - represents a usable, useful and monitored contact :-)

That is outside of the scope of the current policy change. I do support this idea though. :) Cheers, -- Shane

Hello Bengt, As announced before in this thread -as in the text you have quoted-, our plan will be announced by mid november. Our planning work is actually done and we are running it through all involved departments to be sure all involved parties can commit to the dates stated in the plan. The final announcement along with the detailed explanation and our proposed time line will be published in three days. Kind Regards, Kaveh Ranjbar, RIPE NCC Database Group Manager On Nov 12, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Bengt Gördén <bengan@bag.org> wrote:

2012-10-22 17:59, Denis Walker skrev:

...

Dear Colleagues,

The RIPE NCC is working on the implementation plan. It requires changes to the core RIPE Database as well as several tools, such as Webupdates and the LIR Portal, and then finally the Abuse Finder Tool. Also some internal processes managed by the Registration and Customer Services Departments need modifying to include a check that an "abuse-c:" has been provided by a resource holder when requesting services.

The RIPE NCC expects to have the plan ready for publishing to the community by mid November 2012.

I sent almost the exact same mail, as the questioner of this thread, in response to Emilio Madaios mail "[anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Proposal Accepted (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC Database)" asking for an ETA for the implementation. It makes me really angry to be ignored by people I pay to get service. It's not the first time I've been treated like this.

Bengt Gördén Resilans AB Paying customer to RIPE