Does the table design below violate the 2nf normalization principle or any normalization rule ( ie. 1nf,3nf)? I have read that 2nf is violated only if there are non key attributes that are functionally dependent to some composite keys rather than to the whole composite keys. However, I have read in other sources that the design such as the one below is a violation of 2nf simply because certain attribute value appears in multiple rows for certain key. However, phone is entirely dependent to user, and I don't understand how this violates 2nf.
record_id name phone 1 john 6789678 2 john 3879767