Object Metadata Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): Object Metadata Proposal
- Next message (by thread): automatic DB cleanup proposal (v2)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrei Robachevsky
andrei at ripe.net
Thu Nov 15 19:15:39 CET 2001
Dear Janos, Janos Zsako wrote: > I just have a further suggestion and a question (I apologize if this has > already been discussed). > > >> Metadata Contents >> ------------------ >> > >> Other meta-attributes may be added as needed. >> > > My suggestion would be to add a meta-attribute "creation-time:" which > would store the date and time the object was created (as opposed to > "update-time:", which only shows when it was last updated). > This attribute would never change. > > The rationale behind having this attribute is that one would have a > proof of the existence of the object in the database from (at least) > creation-date (until at least query time). > > This may help for example auditing LIR assignments to the same end-user > (which is limited to one AW worth in any 12 months). > > This may provide some useful indicators for auditing, but cannot be considered as data that auditing (or other similar procedures) depends on. After implementing this proposal 99.9% of the database objects will have no creation-time, nor update-time. Which shouldn't result in treating them differently from objects that have such metadata set. But I agree that having such meta-attribute improves situation in the long run. > > My question would be about the generation of the initial values (of > update-time and ref-time) for the _existing_ objects. > > One aproach would be to use the "changed:" value for "update-time", > and for "ref-time" the most recent "changed" value of the objects > referencing the given object. The only problem is that we know > "changed" is not (very) reliable. > > An other approach would be to use the time of the (initial) creation > of the meta-attributes as initial value both for "update-time" and > "ref-time". This is probably misleading. A better approach would > probably be to leave these values empty, but this would not meet the > current spec. > Current spec is a very early draft, and it allows empty value for example for "expire-time:". Or we may display "never", "n/a", etc. in such case. > The most exact approach would be to retrieve the exact values from the > update logs, but this is probably too expensive. > Agree. > My question is which approach do you plan to take (one of the above or > one I did not think about)? > > > Thanks and regards, > Janos > Thanks, -- Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC
- Previous message (by thread): Object Metadata Proposal
- Next message (by thread): automatic DB cleanup proposal (v2)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]