[arin-ppml] Revised/Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-5: Validation of POCs Referenced as Abuse Contacts

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Wed Jul 17 08:44:52 EDT 2019

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:29 AM ARIN <info at 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 at .

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.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190717/1a4838f0/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list