RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)

[Pekka Savola <]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not.
> If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and
> since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it.
> 
> If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need
> to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF
> Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go through an AD
> (and I am willing to consider).
> 
> Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed?

Well, when the last call was made, RPSLng document was deemed for 
Proposed Standard.  And I agree with this.

The confusion may have come from the fact that Curtis mentioned that 
maybe the other parts of RPSL might be progressed on the standards 
track, to DS.  Then re-forming a WG would be a good idea.

But I think the issue above is premature.  We need to ship this, today
if not yesterday :-).  It's really needed.  Individual submission
seems fine by me -- everyone interested is reading these lists 
anyway, it won't get any better by cranking up the formal 
structures again :-).

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings