nanog mailing list archives
Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC?
From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" <ops.lists () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:26:54 +0530
On Jan 14, 2008 12:39 AM, Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com> wrote:
Although you need a some overlap, I think you get much better "buy-in" when people from the same industry are developing their operational standards.
Well, MAAWG does that, and has produced a lot of good work in the past. Has the same ISPs that come to NANOG, NSPSEC etc too, and in some cases the same people. So is that a call for *NOGs to come out with operational BCPs (no, not "standards")? --srs
Current thread:
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC?, (continued)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Paul Ferguson (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Christopher Morrow (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Steve Atkins (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Stephane Bortzmeyer (Jan 14)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Christopher Morrow (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Paul Ferguson (Jan 12)
- Re[2]: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Paul Ferguson (Jan 12)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Leigh Porter (Jan 13)
- RE: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Paul Ferguson (Jan 12)
- RE: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Joel Jaeggli (Jan 14)
- RE: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 13)
- Re: Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC? Sean Donelan (Jan 13)