This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Jaap Akkerhuis jaap at NLnetLabs.nl
Fri Apr 8 14:00:53 CEST 2016

 Peter Koch writes:

 > From a data protection perspective, you don't need a reason to delete, you'd
 > need a reason to keep, so the "hurry" starts as soon as the last reference
 > is revoked.  Is there a substantive risk? Maybe not. I'd still like
 > to understand what purpose that six months period is supposed to serve.
 > 

The last time I looked (10 years or so ago) the Ducth law/guidelines(?)
stated that date should be removed 5 years after it doesn't has any
function. I think one can find that at something like
<https://autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl>.

	jaap

• Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database
• Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Locking unmaintained PERSON and ROLE objects in the RIPE Database

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ db-wg Archives ]