On 17/04/14 12:58, Denis Walker wrote:

Dear Job If we implement attributes with generated values is there any point in keeping the "changed:" attribute at all? It: -is user set to a vast range of dates (user's choice) with as many or few instances as you wish -is unreliable and possibly miss-leading to anyone else -will become, even if correct, a duplication of both the generated values and --list-versions output -requires mandatory email address -invites abuse Maybe it could be deprecated if the proposed attributes are implemented?

I feel that this would make sense. The changed: attribute actually seems to convey very little in the way of concrete data.

Regards Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team

On 17/04/2014 13:38, Job Snijders wrote:

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 04:33:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:

On Apr 15, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:

I look forward to the group's feedback! Also, I'm interested in how
people would use this attribute in their workflows or automation.

No objections to an automatically enforced last-modified attribute,
but then I would demote changed to an optional attribute to allow
removing duplicate information. I already use changed this way, by
only keeping the last one.

I think making changed: optional is good addition to the proposal. 

Kind regards,

Job