Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 5:29 PM Mark Andrews wrote: > Actually if ARIN doesn’t pull the resources, after notification and a grace > period to > get them fixed, then what is the point in writing policy requiring that they > be up to > date and working? There needs to be checks and balances for

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: On 8/12/19 3:26 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: Half my grump with Amazon here is that they have, for all practical purposes, unlimited money and unlimited personnel. They should be the go-to example for How To Do It Right. They should be the model (or

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 8/13/19 3:10 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > With a global company, there's no such thing > as a local natural monopoly in play; how would > you assign oversight to a global entity? Which > "public" would be the ones being protected? > The city of Seattle, WA, where Amazon is > headquartered? The

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:31 PM Stephen Satchell wrote: > On 8/9/19 4:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > ...apparently Amazon has become a public utility > > now? > > > > I look forward with bemusement to the PUC > > tariff filings for AWS pricing. ^_^;; > > [...] > > And it wouldn't be the PUC,

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 12 Aug 2019, at 3:26 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:12:48AM -0700, Stephen Satchell wrote: >> "The rules" have been around for years, and are codified in the RFCs >> that are widely published and available to all at zero cost. (That >> wasn't always true, as it

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 8/12/19 3:26 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: Half my grump with Amazon here is that they have, for all practical purposes, unlimited money and unlimited personnel. They should be the go-to example for How To Do It Right. They should be the model (or one of the models) that we're all trying to

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

> On Aug 12, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Henry Yen wrote: > > ftp://rfc-editor.org ftp://rfc-editor.org still mounts perfectly well using macOS Finder but shows to be now devoid of useful content via ftp. James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com GPG

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 15:26:22PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > I also share your recollection of > an earlier FTP site but a few minutes of checking old documents hasn't turned > up its name and it's fallen out of long-term memory, at least for the moment. ftp://rfc-editor.org (also via

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:12:48AM -0700, Stephen Satchell wrote: > "The rules" have been around for years, and are codified in the RFCs > that are widely published and available to all at zero cost. (That > wasn't always true, as it wasn't until the DDN Protocol Handbook volumes > were published

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 8/9/19 4:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > ...apparently Amazon has become a public utility > now? > > I look forward with bemusement to the PUC > tariff filings for AWS pricing. ^_^;; Don't scoff too hard. How do you think that telephone service became a utility? Utilities didn't grow on

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:16 AM Scott Christopher wrote: > > [...] > It's not about $BIGCORP having lots of corporate lawyers imposing its will > on the small guys - it's about Amazon's role as a public utility, upon > which many many many important things depend. > > S.C. > > I must have missed

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

[Speaking ONLY FOR MYSELF AS AN INDIVIDUAL.] On Aug 4, 2019, at 8:15 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:17 AM Scott Christopher wrote: > John Curran wrote: > > ... > >> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the >> ARIN registration services

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Rubens Kuhl wrote: > I don't think that "companies with tons of lawyers" should be a factor in > making resource allocation policies. But considering either small or big > networks, an escalation path would reduce friction and increase overall > compliance... for instance, failure to have

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 5:17 AM Scott Christopher wrote: > John Curran wrote: > > ... > > As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the > ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so please carefully > consider proposed policy both from the overall

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 4 Aug 2019, at 4:16 AM, Scott Christopher mailto:s...@ottie.org>> wrote: ... What I have been saying is that if ARIN revoked Amazon's resources because of a trivial matter of bounced Abuse PoC, even if the small "community" of network operators and other interested parties passed a rule

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

John Curran wrote: ... > As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability of the > ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so please carefully > consider proposed policy both from the overall community benefit being > sought, and from the implications faced

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 1:25 AM Joe Provo wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:02:58PM +0300, T??ma Gavrichenkov wrote: > I think they will be planning to reach out to ARIN with the same text > > right after the RIPE process ends this way or another. > > Uh, ARIN-2019-5 has been in the ARIN PDP

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 8/3/19 9:15 PM, John Curran wrote: > As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability > of the ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so > please carefully consider proposed policy both from the overall > community benefit being sought, and from the

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 31 Jul 2019, at 5:31 PM, Scott Christopher mailto:s...@ottie.org>> wrote: ... What I have been saying is that, if ARIN did something so brazen as to revoke Amazon's resources because of some bounced PoC emails, the impact would be *dramatic* and likely lead to the end of ARIN. Just think

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Actually if ARIN doesn’t pull the resources, after notification and a grace period to get them fixed, then what is the point in writing policy requiring that they be up to date and working? There needs to be checks and balances for systems to work. The only thing is what should the grace

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:02:58PM +0300, T??ma Gavrichenkov wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:20 PM Christoffer Hansen > wrote: > > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > > policy came into effect of validating ALL 'OrgAbuseEmail' objects listed > > in the ARIN

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Sandra Murphy wrote: > Scott, you might want to read "Policy Development Process (PDP)” > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ in order to discover just > exactly what John means by “If the community developed a policy”. > > You might also want to join the Public Policy Mailing List,

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Scott, you might want to read "Policy Development Process (PDP)” https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ in order to discover just exactly what John means by “If the community developed a policy”. You might also want to join the Public Policy Mailing List, arin-p...@arin.net, to discuss.

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

> OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their resistance? (And > if known, > what are the *real* reasons if different?) https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2018-October/thread.html -- Steve P

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

John Curran wrote: > Scott - > > Alas, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of ARIN… we > don’t do anything other than implement policies that this community wants. If > the community developed a policy to require Abuse POC’s validation, and said > policy made clear that

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 4:04 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > > OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their resistance? > > Here's a good place to start: https://ripe78.ripe.net/archives/steno/37/ > ^F, "You're done", enjoy! P.S. Suddenly there's an important mistake in the transcript:

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 3:35 PM Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:02:58 +0300, Töma Gavrichenkov said: > > such a policy (2019-04) is still in a discussion > > phase in RIPE and has already seen significant resistance. > > OK, I'll bite. What reasons are they giving for their

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:02:58 +0300, T�ma Gavrichenkov said: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:20 PM Christoffer Hansen > wrote: > > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > > policy came into effect of validating ALL 'OrgAbuseEmail' objects listed > > in the ARIN database.

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:20 PM Christoffer Hansen wrote: > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > policy came into effect of validating ALL 'OrgAbuseEmail' objects listed > in the ARIN database. Just to be precise, such a policy (2019-04) is still in a discussion

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 30 Jul 2019, at 6:44 AM, Scott Christopher mailto:s...@ottie.org>> wrote: On 30/07/2019 11:59, Chris Knipe wrote: Then update your ARIN records to reflect that. Fully agree with Dan on this one. Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a policy came into effect of

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

I thought it was already a requirement that the POC info had to be validated once a year and accurate? > On Jul 30, 2019, at 6:44 AM, Scott Christopher wrote: > > Christoffer Hansen wrote: > >>> On 30/07/2019 11:59, Chris Knipe wrote: >>> >>> Then update your ARIN records to reflect that.

Re: User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

Christoffer Hansen wrote: > On 30/07/2019 11:59, Chris Knipe wrote: > > > Then update your ARIN records to reflect that. Fully agree with Dan on > > this one. > > > > Imagine ARIN did a take from RIPE NCC [Policy Proposal Idea?] and a > policy came into effect of validating ALL

User Unknown (WAS: really amazon?)

On 30/07/2019 11:59, Chris Knipe wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 11:45 AM Scott Christopher wrote: >> Dan Hollis wrote: >>> >>> RCPT To: >>> <<< 550 #5.1.0 Address rejected. >>> 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown >>> >>> DATA >>> <<< 503 #5.5.1 RCPT first >> >> Try jeff () amazon >> > Then update your