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

HI Piotr

You really are barking up the wrong tree here.

On 14/04/2016 00:31, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:00:45AM +0200, denis wrote:
>
> Denis
>
>>> Taking your arguments stated above, I once again (this time more clear)
>>> say that rolling back the change to allow changes to the PERSON object
>>> name would _not_ have fixed the problem.
>>
>> Maybe not, but it would have been a harmless change. Your action has
>
> This change has been discussed and expected in this community at least
> from the year 2000.

For a start this database with this (broken) data model did not exist in 
2000. It was released to production in April 2001.

And has been checked by You in 2014 with RIPE NCC's
> legal team. I haven't seen any technical, legal, procedural (nor any
> other) objections raised by You under issue 221
> (https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/issues/221).
> What has changed during last 1.5 year?

Issue 221 was about changing the PERSON object name. It was agreed by 
the RIPE NCC legal team that they saw no problems at that time. What has 
changed is that you have now identified a hijacking issue. Rolling back 
that change would have prevented 'easy' hijacking by simply changing the 
name of an unmaintained PERSON object to your name. By locking the 
objects they now have to 'get' ID in that name. As you pointed out that 
seems to be easy, although I have no idea how to do something like that.

You seem to be determined to 'prove' I am wrong suggesting rolling back 
the name change would fix this issue. But you don't seem to accept that 
the action you have taken has also NOT fixed the problem but caused many 
more serious problems.

cheers
denis


>
> Piotr
>