[db-wg] revisiting rpsl-related set of rcf documents?
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] revisiting rpsl-related set of rcf documents?
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] revisiting rpsl-related set of rcf documents?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Thu Nov 19 15:25:24 CET 2015
On 2015-11-19 15:20, Shane Kerr wrote: > Wilfried, > > At 2015-11-19 14:40:53 +0200 > Wilfried Woeber <woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> wrote: > >> Following up on the discussion here, during the DB-WG session in Bucharest, >> where changes to different aspects of using the RIPE registry database >> >> - including a reference to discussions relating to cross-RIR authorisation - >> >> I'd like to ask the following question to the community: >> >> Is it about time to revisit the set of RFCs and either get them updated to >> properly reflect the (more) current reality, >> >> or >> >> consciously have them declared historic and overtaken by events? >> >> What's your point of view? > > hm... hard to say. :-) > Certainly RFC 2622 is a stunningly bad RFC, and RFC > 2725 is better but hardly great (I had questions while implementing > RFC 2622 in the past and was told "look at the RtConfig code to see > how it works" when I found inconsistencies). RFC 2769 is an interesting > read, if you like science fiction. ;) > > It would be effort to produce a modern set of RPSL RFC's. Certainly. > It could be > done without a *huge* effort if it is possible to replace a > standards-track RFC without setting up an IETF working group. If > booting a working group is required then I would recommend not to do > it (people who understand IETF process better than me may have > other takes on this). :) > > Alternately RIPE could produce a set of RIPE documents with "modern" > RPSL described. (RIPE-681? :P) > > I guess your real question is "is it worth the effort?". Yes, more or less. But to be more specific, just submit a query for "rpsl" and have fun. The first one that come up for me is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Policy_Specification_Language The next ones are: http://www.irr.net/docs/rpsl.html (Copyright © 2011) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2622 (June 1999) https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/rpsl (....see RFC 2622) The migration from the old RIPE Database (RIPE-181) to the RPSL version of the RIPE Database has been completed in 2001. That's the thing that worries me, this disconnect between current reality and prominent, but *terribly* outdated, documentation. > It doesn't > seem like RPSL will disappear any time soon, so in principle it seems > like updating the documentation is worth it. If this is true, I guess > the question is coming up with the time/money for someone to do this. Just wondering, whether this could be a topic for an intern or a project? > (I'm happy to act as a reviewer, but can't author anything like this.) > > Cheers, > > -- > Shane Thanks for the immediate reply, Wilfried
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] revisiting rpsl-related set of rcf documents?
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] revisiting rpsl-related set of rcf documents?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]