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

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:07:01AM +0200, denis wrote:

Denis

> You really are barking up the wrong tree here.

Nice try, but you misinterpret my intentions.

> 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.

Which do not proof that there was no desire/discussion/need for change
of the person name even earlier:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2001-January/001512.html

> 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.

The hijacking issue was there for years. I'm just surprised that it was
not raised by you during the discussion of issue 221.

> 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.

Please refrain from suggesting that I have done something.

Moreover, keep saying the mantra about causing many more serious
problems is neither the proof of this thesis nor the solution to
anything. If you know/see something which could seriously improve the
quality of the data, security model, business rules, etc, just bring it
on the table.

Piotr

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