Modifying 'person:' objects

Dear Carsten,

Carsten Schiefner wrote:
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> as a follow-up of the short discussion we have had last week during RIPE
> 38 I'd like to continue this discussion in the appropriate forum, the
> db-wg mailing list.
> 
> What from time to time really annoys me is the fact that you cannot
> change a person's name (necessary due to misspellings etc.) that is
> already referenced because the person's name together with the NIC
> handle is the primary key. You cannot delete and re-enter it either
> because it's already referenced. The only way to go is to send an email
> to the human db processor ;-) 'ripe-dbm at ripe.net' to get the data
> changed manually. I consider this as not very efficient.
> 
> During the meeting we were told by Joao and/or Andrej that basically
> there is no further need to have person's name _AND_ NIC handle as the
> primary key, only the NIC handle would be enough. Anyhow, I wouldn't
> like to touch this pragma.
>

Yes, in the new software the internal primary key for person object is a
nic handle. As a matter of fact, in the current version of the database
person name and nic handle do not constitute the primary key either,
because we cannot have different person names with the same nic handle. 

If fact, this restriction exists as another level of protection from
hijacking person objects. In many cases the person name authenticates
the person object.

So please consider how often you need to ask the database
administration, and the disadvantages of having this restriction
removed.
 
> What I would like to propose is a second "pseudo" attribute in addition
> to 'delete:' - having no documentation purpose but functionality: the
> "I really know what I am doing right at the moment" attribute
> ('irkwiadratm:' ;-). This second "pseudo" attribute overruns the above
> mentioned db pragma and forces a change in a person's name (so 'force:'
> migt be better...).
> 
> Where I haven't made up my mind yet is the question whether this always
> should apply or only in thoses cases when a person object is maintainer
> protected. There might be further cases I have not in mind at all at the
> moment - so...
>

If you decide to have this facility in place, I think it should be
restricted to maintained objects only.
 
Regards,

Andrei Robachevsky
DB Group Manager
RIPE NCC