HI Piotr You really are barking up the wrong tree here. On 14/04/2016 00:31, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 12:00:45AM +0200, denis wrote:
Denis
Taking your arguments stated above, I once again (this time more clear) say that rolling back the change to allow changes to the PERSON object name would _not_ have fixed the problem.
Maybe not, but it would have been a harmless change. Your action has
This change has been discussed and expected in this community at least from the year 2000.
For a start this database with this (broken) data model did not exist in 2000. It was released to production in April 2001. And has been checked by You in 2014 with RIPE NCC's
legal team. I haven't seen any technical, legal, procedural (nor any other) objections raised by You under issue 221 (https://github.com/RIPE-NCC/whois/issues/221). What has changed during last 1.5 year?
Issue 221 was about changing the PERSON object name. It was agreed by the RIPE NCC legal team that they saw no problems at that time. What has changed is that you have now identified a hijacking issue. Rolling back that change would have prevented 'easy' hijacking by simply changing the name of an unmaintained PERSON object to your name. By locking the objects they now have to 'get' ID in that name. As you pointed out that seems to be easy, although I have no idea how to do something like that. You seem to be determined to 'prove' I am wrong suggesting rolling back the name change would fix this issue. But you don't seem to accept that the action you have taken has also NOT fixed the problem but caused many more serious problems. cheers denis
Piotr