From joao at psg.com Tue Aug 26 12:48:39 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:48:39 +0200 Subject: RPSL ng - next steps Message-ID: Randy, all, I have been in touch with Andrei and Larry (co-authors) recently to discuss the status of the -01 draft. I think we are agreed that this is ready to move forward. There have been no further comments on the latest draft as sent to the list by Larry last month, which incorporated the discussions from earlier in the year. The RIPE NCC has announced their implementation and I believe Merit is also doing one. We would like to request that this draft is published as a proposed standard. The only other list I can think of where there might be people who could provide input on this is the rps at ietf.org list, though I believe everyone that had an interest is subscribed to the rpslng list. Regards, Joao From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Tue Aug 26 13:00:48 2003 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:00:48 +0200 Subject: RPSL ng - next steps Message-ID: <00A24F5A.888797DE.11@cc.univie.ac.at> Hi Joao! >We would like to request that this draft is published as a proposed >standard. That is the aim, I agree. But, what is the procedure here? Is it still (procedurally) easy to make adjustments to the text when it has moved to PS already? I'd expect a couple of comments, and maybe change proposals, as soon as we have implementations available and folks start to play with/use that. Wilfried. From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Tue Aug 26 13:10:50 2003 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:10:50 +0200 Subject: RPSL ng - next steps Message-ID: <00A24F5B.EF943FEE.17@cc.univie.ac.at> Thanks for the advice, Randy! Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ From: Randy Bush Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:08:59 +0900 To: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" CC: joao at psg.com, rpslng at ripe.net Subject: RE: RPSL ng - next steps > But, what is the procedure here? Is it still (procedurally) easy to make > adjustments to the text when it has moved to PS already? yes, you can recycle at ps until you are ready to go to draft std. > I'd expect a couple of comments, and maybe change proposals, as soon as > we have implementations available and folks start to play with/use that. this is not unusual randy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From engin at ripe.net Tue Aug 26 13:27:42 2003 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:27:42 +0200 Subject: RPSL ng - next steps In-Reply-To: <00A24F5A.888797DE.11@cc.univie.ac.at> References: <00A24F5A.888797DE.11@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <20030826112742.GC24269@x47.ripe.net> Hi, On 2003-08-26 13:00:48 +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Hi Joao! > > >We would like to request that this draft is published as a proposed > >standard. > > That is the aim, I agree. > > But, what is the procedure here? Is it still (procedurally) easy to make > adjustments to the text when it has moved to PS already? > > I'd expect a couple of comments, and maybe change proposals, as soon as > we have implementations available and folks start to play with/use that. I see two ways to go: - first, put the RPSLng implementation(s) into production, - get feedback, - then have the RFC or, - first have the RFC as PS - then put the implementation into production - then fix any problems with the RFC Requesting comments by preparing a prototype implementation did not really work. We have announced our prototype on 12 May 2003: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00066.html No comments came so far. There is only one route6 object created (except the ones that NCC employees created for testing). In any case, I guess the community should decide how we must proceed. Best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group From randy at psg.com Tue Aug 26 14:01:38 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:01:38 +0900 Subject: LAST CALL REQUEST - draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt References: <6F9664B2-D7BC-11D7-A51D-000A959B2120@isc.org> Message-ID: > Shall this be done now or after the last call is over? plan to cut a new draft between last call and iesg review but i find the comments on the likelyhood of change to be interesting. in particular, what changes? randy From joao at psg.com Tue Aug 26 14:02:47 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:02:47 +0200 Subject: LAST CALL REQUEST - draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt Message-ID: <352A6636-D7BD-11D7-A51D-000A959B2120@psg.com> Randy, We can split the references into normative and not and give the number for the RIPE doc in [3] I think the draft was finished before the new requirement to explicitly label references as (non-)normative. Shall this be done now or after the last call is over? Joao PS: I posted this a moment ago with the wrong From, so you may see a duplicate later. On Tuesday, Aug 26, 2003, at 13:37 Europe/Amsterdam, Randy Bush wrote: >> May I assume that all the references are NORMATIVE ?? > > yes, they need to be labeled properly. > > but i do not think [3] is. and it needs a ripe doc number. > > randy > > From randy at psg.com Tue Aug 26 13:08:59 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:08:59 +0900 Subject: RPSL ng - next steps References: <00A24F5A.888797DE.11@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: > But, what is the procedure here? Is it still (procedurally) easy to make > adjustments to the text when it has moved to PS already? yes, you can recycle at ps until you are ready to go to draft std. > I'd expect a couple of comments, and maybe change proposals, as soon as > we have implementations available and folks start to play with/use that. this is not unusual randy From randy at psg.com Tue Aug 26 13:37:37 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:37:37 +0900 Subject: LAST CALL REQUEST - draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550245BD5D@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Message-ID: > May I assume that all the references are NORMATIVE ?? yes, they need to be labeled properly. but i do not think [3] is. and it needs a ripe doc number. randy From joao at isc.org Tue Aug 26 13:57:15 2003 From: joao at isc.org (Joao Damas) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:57:15 +0200 Subject: LAST CALL REQUEST - draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6F9664B2-D7BC-11D7-A51D-000A959B2120@isc.org> Randy, We can split the references into normative and not and give the number for the RIPE doc in [3] I think the draft was finished before the new requirement to explicitly label references as (non-)normative. Shall this be done now or after the last call is over? Joao On Tuesday, Aug 26, 2003, at 13:37 Europe/Amsterdam, Randy Bush wrote: >> May I assume that all the references are NORMATIVE ?? > > yes, they need to be labeled properly. > > but i do not think [3] is. and it needs a ripe doc number. > > randy > > From joao at psg.com Tue Aug 26 14:13:11 2003 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:13:11 +0200 Subject: LAST CALL REQUEST - draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tuesday, Aug 26, 2003, at 14:01 Europe/Amsterdam, Randy Bush wrote: >> Shall this be done now or after the last call is over? > > plan to cut a new draft between last call and iesg review OK. > > but i find the comments on the likelyhood of change to be > interesting. in particular, what changes? > I don't think anyone has any particular changes in mind. I believe it was just a query about the possibility of change in case it is necessary, since ietf docs, once published are perceived as not to be altered in any way. > randy > > Joao From iesg-secretary at ietf.org Tue Aug 26 16:07:49 2003 From: iesg-secretary at ietf.org (The IESG) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:07:49 -0400 Subject: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard Message-ID: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider 'RPSLng' as a Proposed Standard. This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg at ietf.org or ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-09-23. File(s) can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt