Change the proposed language in 2.1.2 from “must” to “may”, and develop (via IETF, or simply across RIRs) a standard API format for submitting reports, and I could support this policy.
Given such a standard does not exist, I am not inclined to support this proposal. If such a standard existed, I would support this as a new optional field, as Scott proposes, but not a mandatory field and not replacing the existing abuse contact field. -C > On Oct 27, 2021, at 11:39 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:59 AM Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Backwards compatibility is important here. If we want to add URL >> capabilities, there's no reason it can't be a new field. > > Hi Scott, > > I buy the backwards compatibility theory. ARIN staff will have to > comment but I think that's an implementation detail: the policy does > not require them to remove the old abuse contacts; it just makes them > optional and requires ARNI to add abuse URLs. > > With that understanding, and/or a rewrite to make it clear, would you > support the proposal? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin > [email protected] > https://bill.herrin.us/ > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
