[db-wg] Implementation plan for replacing "changed:" with "last-modified:" and "created:" published
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Implementation plan for replacing "changed:" with "last-modified:" and "created:" published
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Peter Koch
pk at DENIC.DE
Mon Feb 2 13:17:36 CET 2015
On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:02:28PM +0100, Tim Bruijnzeels wrote: > > 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. thanks, Tim, for clarifying this. For person/role objects, there remains a tiny aspect then that will be slightly different from before. While many maintainers keep all changed: attributes and often enough the first one equals the creation date, an explicit "created:" (modulo all uncertainties about legacy data) will show a person's "age" in the DB. That's not necessarily a showstopper (could be mitigated if need be), but could benefit from a sentence or two. There are lots of reasons why one might _want_ to see this, but the real need isn't as obvious to me as is the last-modified: timestamp. And, btw, that also holds for the output of person handles in the context of other object types' histories. > 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. Sounds reasonable to me. Don't know how many person objects are multi maintained, but for a 1:1 relationship, the scheme above should work well. -Peter
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Implementation plan for replacing "changed:" with "last-modified:" and "created:" published
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] [training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]