[db-wg] Implementation plan for replacing "changed:" with "last-modified:" and "created:" published

Dear working group,

On 02 Feb 2015, at 11:23, Peter Koch <pk at DENIC.DE> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 10:37:41AM +0100, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote:
> 
>>  1) introduce the new attributes ?created:? and ?last-modified:?
>>  2) make the "changed:" attribute optional
>>  3) deprecate the "changed:" attribute.
> 
> good to see this move ahead, the automated time stamps will help
> reduce confusion.
> 
>> The time lines and documentation for each phase are detailed here:
>> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/tim/deprecating-the-changed-attribute-in-the-ripe-database
>> 
>> We look forward to any questions or comments you might have.
> 
> What type of objects will be affected by the proposed change (assume: all)?

yes, all

> What type of objects will be subject to the --list-versions optiuon?
> 
> Both might have data protection aspects (cf. Piotr's mail <20140912093643.GH8166 at hydra.ck.polsl.pl>
> dated 12 Sep 2014) and the labs article is silent about this.

--list-versions and --show-version are not available for Person and Role objects for this reason, and we have no current plans to change that.

That said, technically, the working group could explore the idea of authenticated queries. In theory we could allow authorised maintainers of objects to see the history of these objects. I believe that data protection concerns would not apply in that case. We may also be able to supply more information in future for *authenticated* queries only - such as which maintainer, or when auth is introduced on person objects, which person made a change. We currently do get questions about updates from users from time to time, because it's not clear to them which of their colleagues made a change.

> Minor issue: the removal of the "changed:" attribute in phase 3 or
> any otehr change in the previous phases will not be changing
> the time stamps, following the spirit "the RIPE NCC will make sure
> that this attribute is not modified in case of bulk changes that have
> no semantic meaning"?

Yes, indeed.

In earlier discussions we concluded that if an attribute is removed altogether, then by definition that attribute is no longer meaningful.

Kind regards,

Tim Bruijnzeels