Registry Interfaces 1.1 RFC

[Markus Demleitner]

Hi Theresa,

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 05:56:26PM +0000, Theresa Dower wrote:
> Almost  conversely, since all of the searchable registries have
> independently been doing a full re-harvest from scratch every N
> (6?) months to account for unannounced deleted records, I'm okay
> with declaring that activity an operational requirement for
> searchable registries.  It isn't easy to validate compliance like
> defining an API, but is still worth stating.  I'll add this unless

Since it's not validatable anyway, I'd not make it a formal
requirement.  But right below the discussion of the levels of deleted
record support, I could well see language like:

  Searchable registries are not required to do full harvests of
  publishing registries with no support for deleted records every
  time, so their operators cannot expect their deletions to propagate
  quickly.  Searchable registries SHOULD do full harvests for such
  registries regularly, perhaps on an order of a month, however, to
  enable even such registries to shed obsolete records.  
  
  To provide some resilience against software bugs or operating
  errors, searchable registries also SHOULD perform occasional full
  harvests of registries supporting deleted records.  In VO practice,
  six months have turned out a good interval for such routine full
  synchonisation.

Or something like that.

      -- Markus