Re: comments on draft-damas-rpslng-00.txt

[Joao Luis Silva Damas <]

At 13:21 +0100 17/1/03, Engin Gunduz wrote:
> Hi Joao,
>
> Some little comments on the draft:
>
> The format of the route6 class is given as:
>
> route6:         [mandatory]  [single]     [primary/look-up key]
> ...  (rest an in the route class)
>
> s/rest an in/rest as in/
>
> However, perhaps it is even better to be verbose and list
> all the attributes explicitely. This way, the reader will
> not need to go to references section to see if
> "as in the route class" would include 'mnt-routes' and
> 'mnt-lower' as well or not (you list RFC2622 but not RFC2725 [rps-sec])
> in the references thus route6 class would not have these two attributes,
> at least for the moment, I guess).
Well, we clearly have two options here.
1) Two separate documents updating RFC2662 and RFC2725 respectively
2) Include the IPv6 extensions to RFC2725 into the current draft

I think approach 1) would be easier to understand for a reader even 
if there is one more document to read.

> As a relevant note: In Security Considerations it is said
> "This document describes extensions to RPSL, a language for expressing
>    routing policies.  The extensions introduce ways of making the
>    configurations currently available for describing IPv4 routing
>    policies to IPv6.  They introduce no additional security mechanisms
>    or threats."
>
> I can see the point that we want to leave out security concerns
> out of the discussion for the moment, however we need to discuss
> them as well ('mnt-routes' & 'mnt-lower' attributes in route6, for
> example, and route6 creation rules) before thinking about implementing
> the extentions, as nobody wants unauthorised updates to an rspl
> DB.
>
> Best regards,
> -engin
Joao