Proposal for adding external repository reference to import/e xpor t attributes

Right now, I think we only need to implement the "::" notation in the
RFC2725. For this I think RFC2725 is the result of the standard process and
there is no need to re-open RPSL WG to repeat that again.

However the reason we proposed to implement "::" notation is to address the
need for EXTERNAL REFERENCE. For that I think it might be necessary to start
the WG discussion on how do we support the EXTERNAL REFERENCE in the near
future.

Let's just start implementing the "::" notation while we can also start the
discussion on the topics of EXTERNAL REFERENCE.

I don't know if here is the proper place to start the discussion or we
should go somewhere else ?

Ping Lu
Cable & Wireless USA
Network Tools and Analysis Group
W: +1-703-292-2359
E: plu at cw.net



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Prior [mailto:mrp at mrp.net]
> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 8:08 AM
> To: curtis at fictitious.org
> Cc: Lu, Ping; db-wg at ripe.net; irrtoolset at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: Proposal for adding external repository reference to
> import/expor t attributes
> 
> 
> At 3:10 PM -0400 23/8/02, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> >It is possible to reactivate a WG on the mailing list only, for the
> >purpose of updating an existing RFC and not having a meeting.  This
> >was done with TCPLW for RFC1323.  Cengiz would need to 
> update RPSL (as
> >primary author and keeper of the source of that document).
> >
> >Is the only change needed at this point the :: notation to indicate
> >external repository?  If so, no change is needed to RFC-2622 
> since the
> >:: notation is called for in RFC-2725 and it wouldn't be worth
> >updating RFC-2622 just for that.
> >
> >What you really need to do is get Larry Blunk to update the 
> ISI tools.
> 
> Curtis,
> 
> I wasn't the person suggesting making changes, I was just suggesting 
> that you needed to follow a procedure in order to make it happen and 
> couldn't just "fix" it in software. I would suggest if people think 
> this is a good idea (and I haven't really thought about it) then 
> perhaps merging it into the RPSLng work would be the way to go.
> 
> Mark.
> 
>