NWI-2 Displaying history for database objects where available
Colleagues The DB WG co-chairs would now like to address this issue. There was some discussion on the mailing list in May to July of 2016. In brief the issue is that the current history mechanism has an arbitrary design constraint that only the history of currently existing objects can be seen. This may also not be complete if the object has been deleted and re-created. The problem definition has not yet been finalised. Also there was some discussion about the reasons for wanting more historical information being made available for resource objects (and possibly some other object types). We would therefore like to ask anyone with concerns about historical data to please review what was said last year and express support or otherwise and perhaps add some reasoning as to why more data is needed. cheers denis co-chair DB WG
Colleagues The draft problem definition can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-May/005240.html cheers denis co-chair DB WG On 19 October 2017 at 18:12, den is <denis1@gmail.com> wrote:
Colleagues
The DB WG co-chairs would now like to address this issue. There was some discussion on the mailing list in May to July of 2016.
In brief the issue is that the current history mechanism has an arbitrary design constraint that only the history of currently existing objects can be seen. This may also not be complete if the object has been deleted and re-created.
The problem definition has not yet been finalised. Also there was some discussion about the reasons for wanting more historical information being made available for resource objects (and possibly some other object types).
We would therefore like to ask anyone with concerns about historical data to please review what was said last year and express support or otherwise and perhaps add some reasoning as to why more data is needed.
cheers denis co-chair DB WG
den is via db-wg wrote:
We would therefore like to ask anyone with concerns about historical data to please review what was said last year and express support or otherwise and perhaps add some reasoning as to why more data is needed.
history is important if you're interested in transferring number resources. The current implementation blocks version data if the number resource has ever been de-registered in the past. I would be in favour of seeing the full history. Nick
I agree with Nick. If you want to do some research on the history of some prefix.. where it came from, what geo-location it had .. or who the previous owner was or how large the prefix originally was.. It helps to be able to pull that data from the DB. Currently, parent blocks are simply deleted or removed .. and with them, the history .. I would like to see parent prefixes to be ‘de-activated’ .. or something .. so that you can still query them with some special flags. Erik Bais On 19/10/2017, 22:21, "db-wg on behalf of Nick Hilliard via db-wg" <db-wg-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of db-wg@ripe.net> wrote: den is via db-wg wrote: > We would therefore like to ask anyone with concerns about historical > data to please review what was said last year and express support or > otherwise and perhaps add some reasoning as to why more data is > needed. history is important if you're interested in transferring number resources. The current implementation blocks version data if the number resource has ever been de-registered in the past. I would be in favour of seeing the full history. Nick
I would like to bring to the group's attention the Historical RDAP protocol standard draft presented by Tom Harrison to the REGEXT Working Group during IETF 99 last July: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ellacott-historical-rdap/?include_tex... https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-regext-5-history... Its implementation is under active development at APNIC and you can find an experimental UI to the service at https://www.apnic.net/static/whowas-ui/ Some more detail: https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/whois_search/whowas/ Cheers, Raf den is via db-wg <db-wg@ripe.net> writes:
Colleagues
The DB WG co-chairs would now like to address this issue. There was some discussion on the mailing list in May to July of 2016.
In brief the issue is that the current history mechanism has an arbitrary design constraint that only the history of currently existing objects can be seen. This may also not be complete if the object has been deleted and re-created.
The problem definition has not yet been finalised. Also there was some discussion about the reasons for wanting more historical information being made available for resource objects (and possibly some other object types).
We would therefore like to ask anyone with concerns about historical data to please review what was said last year and express support or otherwise and perhaps add some reasoning as to why more data is needed.
cheers denis co-chair DB WG
participants (4)
-
den is -
Erik Bais -
Nick Hilliard -
Rafael Cintra