Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Let my try to summarise the discussion:
1) changed has a fuzzy definition, a more concise audit trail attribute should replace it. A concrete proposal is needed. David has already thought about this. Want to write it up. Do *not* call it changed:!
2) I porposed to exclude changed: from answers to normal queries. Present the changed attribute only when the query contains a special flag (like -c).
The only serious problem with the proposal I have read so far is the comparison for deleting an object. This could be changed to exclude changed: attributes.
Why not just use NIC/RIPE-handles in the changed field? As long as the server didn't automatically return the corresponding person object when queried (unlike the admin-c, tech-c, etc fields unless the "-r" flag is given) this would hide email addresses from the casual database user while still providing more information for those who "need to know". Regarding the date in the changed field, doesn't the database software check that a new object doesn't have a changed date older than the existing database entry? If not, isn't this something it should do? In any case, having the date (and time?) in the changed field in a standard format (ISO 8601:1988, perhaps) would, IMHO, be useful although it should probably be added by the database software rather than by the user submitting the update. Just my thoughts..... James -- "You are not expected to understand this." Ken Thompson, Unix V6 kernel source.