Re: The addition of guarded fields

[Marten Terpstra <]

bonito@localhost (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes
 * 
 * I do not agree about someone else data modification. I think the NCC should
 * do the following:
 * 1-inform anyone who asks for a block of networks that if different guarded
 *   fields are needed in the future then splitted blocks have to be registered
 * .
 * 2-only the same people who has registered the block can request the splittin
 * g.
 * 3-inforce the above rules in database registration software.

If I read this correctly you agree with me that the software should NOT
automatically split network blocks. The only problem here is that someone
else (ie the guardian of a guarded field) defined the guarded fields, and
he/she is not necessarily the maintainer of the data. Therefore we have a
conflict where parts of the data in an object are maintained by different
persons.

I like the idea of NOT automatically splitting objects (and not only from an
implementers point of view ;-) but reporting back to the guardian and the
last "changer" of an object, that in order to add the guarded fields, the
object must be split, and have them solve the matter among themselves. The
NCC would then simply deny that addition of guarded fields.

-Marten