In message <CAPfiqjaqD1-q_O=3pnzq9qt0y-8-bjhc3ejjn59lzpj-s7d...@mail.gmail.com>, Leo Vegoda <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 10:51 AM Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg ><[email protected]> wrote: > >[...] > >> All I meant was that I was "suspicious" that the created: date/time value >> could >> be, you know, wrong... which it self-evidently is. > >And there lies the value. Within the constraints of the format, the >RIPE NCC alerted you that additional questions were required. You >asked them and got decent answers. I think everyone's a winner here. OK, well, two points: 1) In my sometimes humble opinion, it is suboptimal to have bogus created: values in the public WHOIS records. And my opinion on this point is irrespective of whether the bogus values have been placed there deliberately or accidentally. Furthermore, although the date 01 Jan 1970 has unambiguous significance to me personally... because I've been doing work on *NIX systems for, give or take, the past 40 years... I am not persuaded that every single person who might view the public WHOIS record for the 138.201.0.0/16 object would be so instantly aware of the significance or essential bogosity of that specific value. In short, it's likely confusing for the average man-on-the-street observer. And it isn't as if the job of putting some more meaningful and relevant date/time stamp into the record in this case would be in the least bit difficult. The RIPE WHOIS already contains an ostensibly full history of the registration of this block, and that history quite evidently dates the registration of the block to exactly 2015-09-23 15:10. If there is a reason why 1970-01-01 is, in this instance, a more appropriate value to have in the created: field for this object, as opposed to 2015-09-23, then I am eager to have someone explain that to me. 2) Whereas the created: date/time stamp for the 138.201.0.0/16 object may perhaps be in some sense forgivable, given that it is so self-evidently wrong... at least for anyone with even minimal exposure to *NIX systems... I remain rather entirely perplexed about the created: field values for the 51.155.0.0/16 and 162.55.0.0/16 objects, both of which, as I also noted here yesterday, are clearly marked as "status: LEGACY". Were "LEGACY" allocations still being created as recently as 2015-09-23 and 2019-11-18, respectively? If so, that is certainly news to me, as I suspect it may be also to others. When were the 51.155.0.0/16 and 162.55.0.0/16 blocks actually first registered, either specifically with RIPE or with *any* RIR? And why aren't those original registration dates shown in the respective created: fields for these objects? Forgive me, but it is beginning to appear that I can entirely do away with my local /dev/random device and henceforth just draw as many random numbers as I may need from RIPE WHOIS created: field values. Again, in my humble opinion, this is rather evidently suboptimal. Regards, rfg
