Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name
-
To: Janos Zsako zsako@localhost
-
From: Engin Gunduz engin@localhost
-
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:10:53 +0100
-
Cc: db-wg@localhost, lir-wg@localhost
Hi Janos,
On 2002-12-05 13:58:19 +0100, Janos Zsako wrote:
[...]
> I have a new question, though (I quote from the original proposal):
>
> > From db-wg-admin@localhost Thu Dec 5 10:43:33 2002
> > From: Engin Gunduz engin@localhost
>
> > 1. Objects that refer to a person or role object by name.
> > a. There is only one object with this name.
> > Solution: Update the inconsistent object so that it
> > will contain the NIC handle instead of the name. Add
> > appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object
> > to explain the reason for update.
>
> In case the referring object is maintained (by a probably unresponsive
> maintainer, as you well suggested above) and the referred person happens
> not to be related to the referring object (i.e. the program inferred
> incorrectly the relationship), then the owner/maintainer of the object
> will not be able to delete the person object once it becomes unused.
> Would it not be advisable then to act as in case 1.c. (with a single
> person/role object being referenced by the newly created role object)?
>
> In other words, it may be advisable to refine 1.a. by the following:
>
> 1.a.1. If the referring object is maintained, and the maintainer is
> different from the maintainer of the object with the referred name,
> then proceed as in 1.c. (If the latter object is not maintained, then
> the maintainers are by definition different.)
>
> 1.a.2. If the referring object is unmaintained or both objects are
> maintained by the same maintainer, then proceed as previously described.
>
> This procedure may create superfluous role objects, but I would think
> the chances are low for this to happen and it is a price worth paying.
The upper limit for the number of objects we will create in this
process is around 2000. Considering that there are ~800,000 person
objects (of which ~280,000 are not referenced) 2000 is not a big
number.
> What do you think?
I will incorporate these into the proposal, along with other
possible changes, and publish it before December 20th.
Thanks for feedback...
Best regards,
--
Engin Gunduz
RIPE NCC Database Group
>
> Best regards,
> Janos
