[db-wg] last-modified:, a succesor to changed:

On 17/04/14 12:58, Denis Walker wrote:
> Dear Job
>
> If we implement attributes with generated values is there any point in 
> keeping the "changed:" attribute at all?
>
> It:
> -is user set to a vast range of dates (user's choice) with as many or 
> few instances as you wish
> -is unreliable and possibly miss-leading to anyone else
> -will become, even if correct, a duplication of both the generated 
> values and --list-versions output
> -requires mandatory email address
> -invites abuse
>
> Maybe it could be deprecated if the proposed attributes are implemented?

I feel that this would make sense. The changed: attribute actually seems 
to convey very little in the way of concrete data.

>
> Regards
> Denis Walker
> Business Analyst
> RIPE NCC Database Team
>
> On 17/04/2014 13:38, Job Snijders wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:33:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> On Apr 15, Job Snijders<job at instituut.net>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I look forward to the group's feedback! Also, I'm interested in how
>>>> people would use this attribute in their workflows or automation.
>>> No objections to an automatically enforced last-modified attribute,
>>> but then I would demote changed to an optional attribute to allow
>>> removing duplicate information. I already use changed this way, by
>>> only keeping the last one.
>> I think making changed: optional is good addition to the proposal.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Job
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20140417/7168849f/attachment.html>