[DBWG] Possible solutions to the changed attribute issue

[Frank Habicht]

Dear DBWG,

I'd like to revive this, since I'm not sure we got to a conclusion.

On 04/09/2020 12:45, Simon Seruyinda wrote:

> Dear Nishal/DBWG,

> 

> We thank you for your feedback regarding this proposal. We have taken note of all the submissions. We need community consensus around the approach. 

> 1. Should we auto-generate the changed attribute from mntner->upd-to email/mntner->admin-c->email

> 2. Should we deprecate the changed attribute and replace it with created/last-modified attributes.



I think we agreed that the "liberties" we have with the current
'changed:' attribute are not desirable.

option 1. above, to have this automatically generated, is a clear
improvement.
but syntax restrictions limit the content to one email address.
while the maintainer handle was preferred by some.

option 2. above is a bigger change
I think that impact analysis and implementation timelines from staff
could help us to judge?

Please share input.



> Regarding the session at the AIS, we shall work with the DBWG chair and revert back to you on this.

> A zoom session can be arranged and may be it should not necessarily be tied around AIS as some members of the working group may be participating in the policy discussions.

> 


Was done in separate email.


Regards,
Frank



> Regards;

> Simon

> 

>> On 4 Sep 2020, at 04:30, Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za> wrote:

>>

>>

>> dear wg chair, and afrinic team,

>> at the risk of repeating myself, this remains unanswered:

>>

>> On 24 Aug 2020, at 17:29, Nishal  Goburdhan wrote:

>>

>>> what, from the above, do you need this working group to help with?   community consensus around mandatory maintainerS?  :-)

>>

>> i recognise that there’s no defined process for changing this.  (yet?).

>> i half-expected staff (aka this working group’s secretariat) to present a bullet point straw-man, which addresses the issues that have been presented (in this case, accurate information in whois), and potential solutions.  is this unreasonable?  should i be submitting a proposal a la rpd, and then trying to “defend” that at the next dbwg meeting?

>>

>> i received reminders that the “AIS” event will be taking place online (virtual event) this year.  i did not see an announcement on this list, for a meeting of the dbwg, where, presumably, i expect you (chair and staff) to engage with us mere mortals on dbwg issues.

>>

>> my apologies in advance if this message was caught up in the rest of the AIS clutter;  but i *did* check the archives too.  i’m really only interested in knowing :

>> # if there will be a virtual meeting of the dbwg, and

>> # when this is scheduled for, and

>> # how does one attend

>>

>> and perhaps, since this is virtual, does it even have to be tied around AIS at all .. ?

>>

>> -n.

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> DBWG mailing list

>> DBWG at afrinic.net

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> DBWG mailing list

> DBWG at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/dbwg

>