Re: LAST CALL -- draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt has been submitted

[Simon Leinen <]

Short version: Let's ship it!

Long version:

I think the current version is Good Enough, and it's high time we get
this out as an RFC, so that the routing registries implement it and we
(ISPs that have peerings other than IPv4 unicast) can use it.

Personally I'm not convinced that the current defaulting semantics in
the "mp-..." attributes are optimal, but they seem to be close to the
best compromise that we can achieve.  My reservation is that we
default mp-... without "afi" qualifier to default to exactly the four
AFI/SAFIs of ipv4.unicast, ipv4.multicast, ipv6.unicast,
ipv6.multicast, and this set of four AFI/SAFIs doesn't seem to be
guaranteed future-proof.  But I don't care, I don't think I'll be
using the defaults anyway (look at AS559 in the RIPE test whois
registry at rpslng.ripe.net, port 53001, for how I intend to use
RPSLng).  By the time people will want different defaults - either
because IPv4 or IPv6 or multicast (re-)become exotic, or something
else becomes widespread - we simply won't be able to seamlessly change
those defaults.  But probably by that time it will be a good idea to
base the routing registry on something completely different anyway.

A unified grammar (maybe even in RFC2234-compatible ABNF!) would be
great, but let's leave this for a future RFC that replaces both RFC
2622 and the RPSLng RFC.

Regards,
-- 
Simon.