Changing rrdb objects in the future

[Chris Fletcher <]

> It would appear that current implementations of the e-mail gateway which
> lets you update RR records impose a restriction on the date field to
> prevent people from entering dates that appear to be in the future -
> records like that are returned with an error.

> This is a bit of a pain for people in NZ and Australia, who are typically
> 18-20 hours ahead of RR machines located in the US, and are hence generally
> the date is a day ahead. It means that every time we make an update to an
> RR, we have to date the modification with the previous day's date.

> Now this isn't a really serious problem or anything, but it is annoying.
> Could the RRDB not store date and time records in (say) UTC, and convert
> local times supplied with timezones before sanity-checking dates that
> appear to be in the future?

This sounds like a bug to me. I propose checking the given date
against tomorrow's date (local time). This should fix the problem you
are experiencing and still catch silly errors.

Comments?

New records and updates can use dates of the form YYYYMMDD or
YYMMDD. Existing records have not been changed.

We should probably disallow the YYMMDD form and convert the existing
dates to the new form at some point.

RPSL specifies the YYYYMMDD form for the changed: attrib (and is vague
about the new withdrawn: attrib but gives a 8 digit example).

Chris.