[db-wg] History lost ...

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:19:55PM +0200, Bengt Gördén wrote:

Dear Bengt

> Den 2015-05-19 14:44, Piotr Strzyzewski skrev:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:45:12PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
>>> Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 05:42:59PM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>  From my point of view, there was no formal proposal to discuss. Just an
>>>> informal question by Eric. It is even unclear which objects are expected
>>>> to be visible.
>>> IIRC there were a couple of quite informal discussions about this Q,
>>> some of them maybe even in the hallways :-)
>> I have to admit that I deliberately not mentioned them, since they were
>> (as you wrote) informal. I do believe, that interested parties should
>> move those informal discussions to this mailing list.
>
> I distinctly remember that we were asked if we wanted to have the deleted 
> objects viewable. In fact it was at RIPE 66 in Dublin. I'd like to think 
> that this is formal enough to proceed to next level.
>
> Slide 14.
> https://ripe66.ripe.net/presentations/186-DB_Update-66.pdf
>
> 13m30s in
> https://ripe66.ripe.net/archives/video/1174/
>
> I asked about it after RIPE 67.
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2013-November/004193.html

And the answer was:

"There was no discussion or agreement on taking this any further at RIPE
67 or since on the mailing list. If the community would like us to
provide this service, we can add this to our feature list for a future
release of the RIPE Database software."

Since there was almost lack of discussion, my personal proposal is to
first ask NCC legal department for legal comment about deleted objects
being viewable. I would suggest limiting the list of possible objects to
the same for which DB provides --show-version and --list-versions
nowadays.

Is it ok with you and the rest of the WG?

Piotr

-- 
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl