[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 26 18:43:30 CET 2015
On 2015-11-19 16:38, Tomas Hlavacek wrote: > 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? Probably not exclusively, but imho this is a major aspect. > 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. Interesting idea! > 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? I don't have a strong opinion on this one. That’s the reason why I'd like to see contributions to this discussion from the wider community. > Or would it be > better to wait for revisions of the formal documents or even for RDL to > be finalized? I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the pointer! Alas, when I had a look, the IETF page came back with: "IESG state Expired" and "This Internet-Draft is no longer active. [...]". Is there any follow-up activity in the IETF? > Tomas 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 ]