Hi Job

With the current transfer policy an address block may be split into 2 or more parts. As the address range is the primary key defining the object, each of these parts is a new object and none relate to the old parent object. The deleted parent object is currently not available as history as it has been deleted.

Also if an address range is reassigned it may have been deleted and recreated by the LIR. Although this still has the same primary key, internally it has a different unique object id within the database. The current history feature does not cross boundaries of object ids. So you can only see the history of an object back to the most recent deletion point.

So if anyone has a legitimate interest in who held an address range in the past you need to be able to see the history of deleted and recreated objects. The focus MUST only be on resource objects. You should never show the history of personal or security data.

cheers
denis


From: Job Snijders <job@instituut.net>
To: db-wg@ripe.net
Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2016, 14:57
Subject: [db-wg] NWI-2 - displaying history for DB objects where available

Dear Working Group,

This is the second Numbered Work Item.

(You can review https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/2016-April/005190.html
to ensure you have an overview of the next steps.)

---------
NWI-2:

    The RIPE NCC was tasked with the following action point: AP69.2
    [RIPE NCC] Come up with some straw man proposals for displaying
    history for objects where available.

    The RIPE Database already provides a mechanism for object history.
    In our understanding the problem statement that motivated the action
    point is that some people are interested in seeing the history of
    *deleted* objects. It is our understanding that this interest is
    mainly focussed on primary (resource) objects.

    However, it is not entirely clear to the RIPE NCC why this is
    useful. We also have some concerns, mainly non-technical, and
    therefore we believe that the problem statement and motivation needs
    to be better defined in the working group.
---------

The next step is to help refine the problem statement. I would
appreciate it if working group participants with an interest in the
history of objects speak up and elaborate on the issue.

Kind regards,

Job