On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 12:15:29PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Peter Koch wrote:
From a data protection perspective, this cool down phase appears rather long, especially given that even after following (3b) there's no proposed way to actively delete the locked (and re-instantiated) object. What's the perceived drawback of few days only?
Is there a particular hurry to delete these objects? 180 days sounds fine to me.
I was one of the people suggestion this 180 days value, mostly because it is hard to assess what tangible benefits a shorter period would offer. I envision that 180 days is long enough to cover gaps in business processes between an object becoming unreferenced, remaining orphaned for a period (for instance maybe during a migration), and subsequently being attached to a new object again. Admittedly its suggested so to stay on the cautious side. Kind regards, Job