Proposal for extended syntax for the 'country:' attribute

>Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 18:59:03 MET
>From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <Wilfried.Woeber at cc.univie.ac.at>
>
>>    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.

    Sorry for the mixup:  "registry" (LIR) of course !
  
>  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).

    Yes, nevertheless I would like it, because 1. it would simplify lookups
    2. it would emphasize that the address is *assigned* to a customer but
    still bound to a specific LIR (if this is politically correct ?) !
      
>>    Ok, let's finish this sidestep and find a solution for the country
>>    attribute.
>
>  I agree.

    Really now ?-)  However, we should restart the discussion after the
    "country" stuff has been solved.
  
>  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 :-)

    Oh yea.
    
    Christian
    
 --- Christian Panigl        : Vienna University Computer Center  -  ACOnet ---
 --- VUCC - ACOnet           : -------------------------------------------- ---
 --- Universitaetsstrasse 7  : Internet:   Christian.Panigl at CC.UniVie.ac.at ---
 --- A-1010 Vienna / Austria :      Tel:   +43 1 4065822-383    (Fax: -170) ---