[db-wg] revisiting rpsl-related set of rcf documents?

Hi!

On 11/19/2015 02:20 PM, 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. ;)

Is it only a matter of bad RFCs?

>From my point of view it might help to have also software that would
help with producing RPSL. I can imagine a lot of stuff ranging from a
simple HTML form that would guide people through selection of their
peers and setting basic filters, to things like reversing RtConfig and
pre-create RPSL from Cisco/Juniper/... configs.

As the matter of fact I thought about creating some helper software, but
out of desperation induced by reading RFC 2622 I rather created a
(incomplete) RPSL parser in Python and ran the measurements I presented
on today's WG.

Which leads me to the question: Do you think that it make sense to put
an effort into creating a software for current RPSL? Or would it be
better to wait for revisions of the formal documents or even for RDL to
be finalized?

Tomas