Stupid Question: Network Abuse RFC?

Mon Jan 14 01:45:20 UTC 2008

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 12:39 AM, Sean Donelan <sean at 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")?

If you can get the appropriate subject matter people to agree, then
any forum may be useful.  However, as other folks have pointed out,
often there are many different constituencies even within the same 
company.  Just because the same ISPs or people show up to the same
groups, it doesn't necessarily mean those are the right people for
a particular subject.

That's why the natives are important.  In one company you might
want to talk with the abuse folks, another company you might want to
talk with the infrastructure folks, another company you might want
to talk with the application managers, and so on.  Even in the same
company you might need to talk to different people for DDOS incidents,
customer abuse incidents, law enforcement response, and so on.  If
you are lucky you might find a person that spends 90% of their time
trying to get all the different parts of the same company to talk to
each other.

MAAWG is useful for particular subjects, not as useful for other subjects.
I expect the same will be true for any forum.