[db-wg] created: field value

Hi Ronald

I don't have answers to all your questions but let me throw a few ideas out.

First of all the "created:" attribute reflects the date the object was
created in the RIPE Database. This may not be the same as 'registered'
date. For legacy space there is no concept of allocations and
assignments. It was decided many years ago that hierarchies of legacy
resources would all have the "status:" 'LEGACY'. If you look around
the resource 51.155.0.0/16 you will see many /16 objects with "status:
LEGACY" that were 'created' in the database in 2015 - 2019. Maybe a
larger legacy resource has been divided up and transferred as a series
of /16 legacy resources. The created date on all these new /16
resources would effectively be the transferred date when the object
was created in the database. Maybe the original parent legacy resource
object has since been deleted. With the current historical query
service you cannot query for deleted objects. So it is not easy to
check for this situation.

I may be completely wrong but these are possibilities you may want to consider.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

On Fri, 28 May 2021 at 23:45, Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg
<db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> In message <CAPfiqjaqD1-q_O=3pNzq9qt0Y-8-bjhC3ejJn59Lzpj-S7doHw at mail.gmail.com>,
> Leo Vegoda <leo at vegoda.org> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:51 AM Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg
> ><db-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> All I meant was that I was "suspicious" that the created: date/time value could
> >> be, you know, wrong... which it self-evidently is.
> >
> >And there lies the value. Within the constraints of the format, the
> >RIPE NCC alerted you that additional questions were required. You
> >asked them and got decent answers. I think everyone's a winner here.
>
> OK, well, two points:
>
> 1)  In my sometimes humble opinion, it is suboptimal to have bogus created: values
> in the public WHOIS records.  And my opinion on this point is irrespective of
> whether the bogus values have been placed there deliberately or accidentally.
>
> Furthermore, although the date 01 Jan 1970 has unambiguous significance to me
> personally... because I've been doing work on *NIX systems for, give or take, the
> past 40 years... I am not persuaded that every single person who might view the
> public WHOIS record for the 138.201.0.0/16 object would be so instantly aware
> of the significance or essential bogosity of that specific value.
>
> In short, it's likely confusing for the average man-on-the-street observer.
>
> And it isn't as if the job of putting some more meaningful and relevant date/time
> stamp into the record in this case would be in the least bit difficult.  The
> RIPE WHOIS already contains an ostensibly full history of the registration of
> this block, and that history quite evidently dates the registration of the block
> to exactly 2015-09-23 15:10.
>
> If there is a reason why 1970-01-01 is, in this instance, a more appropriate value
> to have in the created: field for this object, as opposed to 2015-09-23, then I am
> eager to have someone explain that to me.
>
> 2) Whereas the created: date/time stamp for the 138.201.0.0/16 object may perhaps
> be in some sense forgivable, given that it is so self-evidently wrong... at least
> for anyone with even minimal exposure to *NIX systems... I remain rather entirely
> perplexed about the created: field values for the 51.155.0.0/16 and 162.55.0.0/16
> objects, both of which, as I also noted here yesterday, are clearly marked as
> "status: LEGACY".
>
> Were "LEGACY" allocations still being created as recently as 2015-09-23 and
> 2019-11-18, respectively?  If so, that is certainly news to me, as I suspect
> it may be also to others.
>
> When were the 51.155.0.0/16 and 162.55.0.0/16 blocks actually first registered,
> either specifically with RIPE or with *any* RIR?  And why aren't those original
> registration dates shown in the respective created: fields for these objects?
>
> Forgive me, but it is beginning to appear that I can entirely do away with my local
> /dev/random device and henceforth just draw as many random numbers as I may need
> from RIPE WHOIS created: field values.
>
> Again, in my humble opinion, this is rather evidently suboptimal.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>