[DBWG] DBWG-2: proposal to auto-generate contents of the mandatory "changed" field in db objects.

Frank Habicht geier at geier.ne.tz
Wed Aug 5 09:22:33 UTC 2020

Hi all,

I'm not wearing a hat.

On 05/08/2020 12:08, Michel ODOU wrote:

> Hi Ben,


> On 04/08/2020 23:38, Ben Maddison wrote:


>> Couple of questions, so help me formulate how we might do that:


>> - Are there currently any objects of types other than role or person

>> that have no mnt-by:?


> We have 1,106 domain objects that do not have a mnt-by attribute.

my personal (non-chair) opinion is that this is dangerous.
Can we get consensus that this should not be allowed?

I believe all creations and updates of domain objects should enforce
that there is a mnt-by.
I volunteer to demonstrate to holders of these objects that it is a BAD
idea to not have a mnt-by. [and i guess i'm not alone ;-)]

>> - Are there any person objects with my.afrinic access that have no

>> mnt-by?


> Yes, we have 4 person objects without any mnt-by attribute that have

> access to MyAfrinic. 3 of them are related to existing and active

> organisations with various roles (general, admin, tech, billing and abuse).


> A small note: when we released the WHOIS 2.3 in September 2017 (and not

> beginning of 2017, which was wrong), we used a script that created a

> maintainer for all the existing person and role objects that had no mnt-by.


> This means that following that migration procedure, all the person and

> role objects in our WHOIS database had a maintainer.

>From below I understand that there was no enforcement that later

creations/updates also had maintainers for these objects, correct?

> Today, we have a total of 9 person objects in the WHOIS database without

> a mnt-by attribute. After a quick look at the logs, I can confirm that

> all these objects had a mnt-by attribute at some point in the past

> (either a "normal" maintainer or an automatically generated one). These

> objects are not protected because their owners removed the mnt-by on

> purpose.

I don't seem to understand possible reasons for that.
Is anyone able to share reasoning for removing maintainers from person
objects (or role objects)?


More information about the DBWG mailing list