Proposal for extended syntax for the 'country:' attribute

>    My idea was just because I think that it is already more important to
>    which registry/provider a network belongs than to which country, unless
>    you want to introduce Internet customs based on country borders ;-)

  I prefer to *not* mix things like *allocations* held by *local IRs*
  (this is administrative stuff) with things like networks having a
  particular range of addresses *assigned* and *used* in a limited number
  of countries and being connected to the Internet by some *ISP(s)*.

  Btw Christian, you probably know my position wrt borders, customs and
  taxes :-)
    
>    Anyhow, of course it should be kept if there is any use for it !  But I
>    don't think that introducing an additional provider *attribute* within
>    the inetnum object will need the design-work for a provider *object* to
>    be finished.  The only thing that should be finished is the decision
>    about the provider IDs which will be used as a DB key.

  Are you really talking "provider" (ISP) or are you talking "registry"?
  In many cases these happen to be the same (organisation) but this is
  not required.
  
  I think that we don't need the LIR info in objects describing
  *assigned* addresses because the IR that performed the assignment can
  be identified by looking at the less specific object(s).
      
>    Ok, let's finish this sidestep and find a solution for the country
>    attribute.

  I agree.
  
  The provider (or TLD admin) concept might become interesting again when
  we start to talk about hierarchical authorization for object creation,
  like route objects and domain objects :-)
    
  Wilfried.