mnt-lower attribute not allowed?

==> From: davidk at isi.edu 
==>       Thu, 3 Oct 1996 18:02:34 -0700 (PDT) 

> From what I recall:
> 
> The AS object that matches the origin AS of a route object could be the
> parent object of the route object, but then people are still able to put
> route objects in with another origin AS which might not be desired by the
> owner of the non-portable CIDR address space. Furthermore, a second
> hierarchy exists: the IP prefix tree. 
> 
> You might want to try to formulate a proposal that is not too
> complicated and also addresses the concerns of most people ...

How about making the inetnum object the parent of the route object?
I think it would make sense to allow the "owner" of the inetnum to create
the route objects..  You can also keep the owner in the "notify:" field of
the route object, so once you delegate maintenance of the route object to
someone else, you can still keep track of what's happening with it.

Or does this sound ludicrous?

			Cheers,
			Steven