[DBWG] DBWG-2: proposal to auto-generate contents of the mandatory "changed" field in db objects.
benm at workonline.africa
Wed Aug 5 11:34:06 UTC 2020
Thanks for the feedback Michel.
On 08/05, Frank Habicht wrote:
> 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 wouldn't limit this only to domain objects.
> 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 ;-)]
I don't believe it is up to you (us) to demonstrate this.
What we need is agreement that this should be fixed, and a
minimally-breaking plan to do so.
> >> - 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?
This seems weird to me.
Why go to the trouble of back-filling those attributes, if they were not
going to become mandatory?
Just an oversight?
> > 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)?
My guess would be accident: people submit updates omitting mnt-by: and
the auto-dbm happily gobbles them up.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the DBWG