question on requirement for mnt-by fields:

Anyone?

> From jhawk at mit.edu Thu May  4 16:29:13 1995
> Received: from radb.ra.net (radb.ra.net [198.108.0.8]) by home.merit.edu (8.6.12/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id QAA12239; Thu, 4 May 1995 16:29:12 -0400
> Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by radb.ra.net (8.6.10/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA19970 for <rradmin at radb.ra.net>; Thu, 4 May 1995 16:29:43 -0400
> Received: from limekiller.MIT.EDU (root at LIMEKILLER.MIT.EDU [18.70.0.36]) by merit.edu (8.6.10/merit-2.0) with ESMTP id QAA26168; Thu, 4 May 1995 16:29:10 -0400
> Received: (from jhawk at localhost) by limekiller.MIT.EDU (8.6.11/8.6.11) id QAA07592; Thu, 4 May 1995 16:29:11 -0400
> Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 16:29:11 -0400
> Message-Id: <199505042029.QAA07592 at limekiller.MIT.EDU>
> To: khuon at merit.net
> Cc: db-admin at merit.net
> Subject: Re: Why did this auto-dbm fail?
> From: John Hawkinson <jhawk at mit.edu>
> Status: R
> 
> 
> > JH> > Without the self referencing mnt-by field, the auto-dbm barfed on your
> > JH> > submission.
> > JH> Eh? Without??
> >  
> >  
> > By your own admission, originally, your mntner did NOT have a mnt-by field
> > thus you weren't allowed to modify it.
> 
> Why does the lack of a mnt-by field suggest that I would be unable to modify
> the mntner object? I had been just recently modified it; it was only
> attempting to add the self-referential mnt-by that fail authorization.
> 
> RIPE-120 says:
> 
> 	If there is no mnt-by attribute, the update always  proceeds
> 	causing  any notifications specified in notify attributes of
> 	the object.  This ensures  backward  compatibility.   It  is
> 
> Is the existance of an mnt-by a prerequisite for adding one?
> 
> The next paragraph reads:
> 
> 	If a new object with a mnt-by  attribute  is  added  to  the
> 	database  or  a  mnt-by attribute is added to an object that
> 	previously had no such attribute, the authorisation step  is
> 	performed on the maintainer to be added.
> 
> I must admit, I'm perplexed -- what do they mean by the last
> phrase ``the authorization step...''? Are they implying that such
> an action will always fail?
> 
> --jhawk
> 



-------- Logged at  Fri May 5 16:19:50 MET DST 1995  ---------