From pekkas at netcore.fi Mon Dec 1 18:18:50 2003 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:18:50 +0200 (EET) Subject: Latest RPSLng draft In-Reply-To: <1069447019.3260.27.camel@ablate.merit.edu> Message-ID: On 21 Nov 2003, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > I forgot to add that there is also an HTML version > available at www.radb.net/rpslng.html Sorry.. I tried to follow up on this quicker, but forgot. A glanced through the diffs between the documents. Seems pretty good. The one high-level comment still left is that I think it would probably make a bit more sense to specify that "ipv4" means "ipv4.unicast,ipv4.multicast" and the same for IPv6 -- that is, do not assume that only unicast would be specified by default. But I don't feel really strongly about this. A couple of minor issues.. indicates the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the remote endpoint of the tunnel. The address family must match that of the local endpoint. denotes the encapsulation used in the tunnel and is one of {GRE,IPinIP}. Routing policies for these routers should be described in the appropriate classes (eg. (e.g. aut-num). ==> This was changed to remove IPv6inIP (for the good), but maybe one should add a brief note on this, like reword to: indicates the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the remote endpoint of the tunnel. The address family must match that of the local endpoint. denotes the encapsulation used in the tunnel and is one of {GRE,IPinIP} (note the outer and inner IP protocol versions can be deduced from the interface context -- so e.g., IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation is just IPinIP). Routing policies for these routers should be described in the appropriate classes (eg. (e.g. aut-num). nits: Abstract This memo presents a new set of simple extensions to the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [1] enabling the language to document routing policies for the IPv6 and multicast address families currently used in the Internet. ==> remove the reference ([1]) from the abstract, it isn't allowed per IESG's ID-nits. It's good as it is without it. ==> I'd also state a very obvious thing that RPSLng is a superset of RPSL; this could be done by rewording s/enabling the language to document/enabling the language to also document/ The keyword "ANY" many also be used instead of prefix ranges ==> s/many/may/ ? Thanks. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From ljb at merit.edu Thu Dec 4 19:39:58 2003 From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry J. Blunk) Date: 04 Dec 2003 13:39:58 -0500 Subject: Latest RPSLng draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1070563197.3791.20.camel@ablate.merit.edu> On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 12:18, Pekka Savola wrote: > On 21 Nov 2003, Larry J. Blunk wrote: > > I forgot to add that there is also an HTML version > > available at www.radb.net/rpslng.html > > Sorry.. I tried to follow up on this quicker, but forgot. > > A glanced through the diffs between the documents. Seems pretty good. > The one high-level comment still left is that I think it would > probably make a bit more sense to specify that "ipv4" means > "ipv4.unicast,ipv4.multicast" and the same for IPv6 -- that is, do not > assume that only unicast would be specified by default. But I don't > feel really strongly about this. Okay, I guess that since you do not feel strongly about this, I will leave it as is. If there is anyone who feels very strongly about this, please speak-up now. > > A couple of minor issues.. > > indicates the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the > remote endpoint of the tunnel. The address family must match that of > the local endpoint. denotes the encapsulation used in > the tunnel and is one of {GRE,IPinIP}. Routing policies for these > routers should be described in the appropriate classes (eg. (e.g. > aut-num). > > ==> This was changed to remove IPv6inIP (for the good), but maybe one > should add a brief note on this, like reword to: > > indicates the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the > remote endpoint of the tunnel. The address family must match that of > the local endpoint. denotes the encapsulation used in > the tunnel and is one of {GRE,IPinIP} (note the outer and inner IP > protocol versions can be deduced from the interface context -- so > e.g., IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation is just IPinIP). Routing policies > for these routers should be described in the appropriate classes > (eg. (e.g. aut-num). > > Okay, I've updated the wording as suggested. > nits: > > Abstract > > This memo presents a new set of simple extensions to the Routing > Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [1] enabling the language to > document routing policies for the IPv6 and multicast address families > currently used in the Internet. > > ==> remove the reference ([1]) from the abstract, it isn't allowed per > IESG's ID-nits. It's good as it is without it. > ==> I'd also state a very obvious thing that RPSLng is a superset of > RPSL; this could be done by rewording s/enabling the language to > document/enabling the language to also document/ Done. By the way, the Abstract seems a bit light (the I-D guidelines recommends have 5-10 lines in the Abstract). Does anyone think we should add more text here? > > The > keyword "ANY" many also be used instead of prefix ranges > > ==> s/many/may/ ? Fixed. Thanks. I've gone ahead and submitted an -02 draft to the IETF. Please let me know if there are any other objections/concerns. -Larry From ljb at merit.edu Tue Dec 9 16:50:52 2003 From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry J. Blunk) Date: 09 Dec 2003 10:50:52 -0500 Subject: Latest RPSLng draft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1070985052.3794.5.camel@ablate.merit.edu> The latest draft is now up on the IETF repository -- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-02.txt I've also put an HTML copy at http://www.radb.net/rpslng.html Does anyone have any objections to going to last call again? -Larry From curtis at workhorse.fictitious.org Tue Dec 9 18:01:21 2003 From: curtis at workhorse.fictitious.org (Curtis Villamizar) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:01:21 -0500 Subject: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) In-Reply-To: Your message of "09 Dec 2003 10:50:52 EST." <1070985052.3794.5.camel@ablate.merit.edu> Message-ID: <200312091701.hB9H1LAg035948@workhorse.fictitious.org> In message <1070985052.3794.5.camel at ablate.merit.edu>, "Larry J. Blunk" writes: > The latest draft is now up on the IETF repository -- > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-02.txt > > I've also put an HTML copy at > http://www.radb.net/rpslng.html > > Does anyone have any objections to going to last call again? > > -Larry No objections here. There were no comments since you sent out this revision (so far at least). For this to go standards track, it would be best if this were a WG document which would mean we should reopen the WG. If so, then I suggest that the WG move this document toward PS. If we're going to reopen then we should decide whether to move RPSL RFC-2622 to DS, recycle as PS with changes, or merge with RPSLng and recycle as PS. The latter (combine RPSL and RPSLng) would be more work (a *lot* more work) but it has been suggested and might improve clarity. If the WG just wants to make RPSLng a WG doc and then advance it as PS, the WG might be able to do so with very strong concensus on the list but more likely would have to reopen and meet at least once, then close again. If the TCPLW WG can be considered as a valid precendence then this shouldn't be too much trouble, but IESG requirements for WG procedures have changed (and are continuing to change). Curtis From ljb at merit.edu Mon Dec 22 21:38:45 2003 From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry J. Blunk) Date: 22 Dec 2003 15:38:45 -0500 Subject: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) In-Reply-To: <200312091701.hB9H1LAg035948@workhorse.fictitious.org> References: <200312091701.hB9H1LAg035948@workhorse.fictitious.org> Message-ID: <1072125524.3794.28.camel@ablate.merit.edu> On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 12:01, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > In message <1070985052.3794.5.camel at ablate.merit.edu>, "Larry J. Blunk" writes: > > The latest draft is now up on the IETF repository -- > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-02.txt > > > > I've also put an HTML copy at > > http://www.radb.net/rpslng.html > > > > Does anyone have any objections to going to last call again? > > > > -Larry > > > No objections here. There were no comments since you sent out this > revision (so far at least). > > For this to go standards track, it would be best if this were a WG > document which would mean we should reopen the WG. If so, then I > suggest that the WG move this document toward PS. If we're going to > reopen then we should decide whether to move RPSL RFC-2622 to DS, > recycle as PS with changes, or merge with RPSLng and recycle as PS. > The latter (combine RPSL and RPSLng) would be more work (a *lot* more > work) but it has been suggested and might improve clarity. If the WG > just wants to make RPSLng a WG doc and then advance it as PS, the WG > might be able to do so with very strong concensus on the list but more > likely would have to reopen and meet at least once, then close again. > If the TCPLW WG can be considered as a valid precendence then this > shouldn't be too much trouble, but IESG requirements for WG procedures > have changed (and are continuing to change). > > Curtis Curtis, I'm not sure if there is big need to push this standards track or to merge the RPSL and RPSLng documents. At this point, we (the RPSLng group) have been working on this document for 2 years now and I think the consensus is to go forward without re-opening the WG. Since there have been no further comments I'd like to go to last call on draft-blunk-rpslng-02. As Randy is no longer an A-D, I assume it is up to Bert Wijnen to put this before the IESG? Regards, Larry Blunk From ljb at merit.edu Mon Dec 22 23:09:39 2003 From: ljb at merit.edu (Larry J. Blunk) Date: 22 Dec 2003 17:09:39 -0500 Subject: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1072130979.3794.41.camel@ablate.merit.edu> On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 16:29, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not. > > If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and > > since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it. > > > > If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need > > to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF > > Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go through an AD > > (and I am willing to consider). > > > > Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed? > > Well, when the last call was made, RPSLng document was deemed for > Proposed Standard. And I agree with this. > > The confusion may have come from the fact that Curtis mentioned that > maybe the other parts of RPSL might be progressed on the standards > track, to DS. Then re-forming a WG would be a good idea. > > But I think the issue above is premature. We need to ship this, today > if not yesterday :-). It's really needed. Individual submission > seems fine by me -- everyone interested is reading these lists > anyway, it won't get any better by cranking up the formal > structures again :-). Okay, this sounds good. Bert, the RPSLng work is documented in the list archives hosted by the RIPE NCC at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/rpslng/index.html We've had a number of formal/informal get-togethers at RIPE and IETF meetings. If you don't want to get involved, I will make an individual submission. Regards, Larry From pekkas at netcore.fi Mon Dec 22 22:29:09 2003 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:29:09 +0200 (EET) Subject: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) In-Reply-To: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC429@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not. > If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and > since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it. > > If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need > to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF > Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go through an AD > (and I am willing to consider). > > Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed? Well, when the last call was made, RPSLng document was deemed for Proposed Standard. And I agree with this. The confusion may have come from the fact that Curtis mentioned that maybe the other parts of RPSL might be progressed on the standards track, to DS. Then re-forming a WG would be a good idea. But I think the issue above is premature. We need to ship this, today if not yesterday :-). It's really needed. Individual submission seems fine by me -- everyone interested is reading these lists anyway, it won't get any better by cranking up the formal structures again :-). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From bwijnen at lucent.com Mon Dec 22 22:22:40 2003 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:22:40 +0100 Subject: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC429@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> > On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 12:01, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > > In message <1070985052.3794.5.camel at ablate.merit.edu>, > "Larry J. Blunk" writes: > > > The latest draft is now up on the IETF repository -- > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-02.txt > > > > > > I've also put an HTML copy at > > > http://www.radb.net/rpslng.html > > > > > > Does anyone have any objections to going to last call again? > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > No objections here. There were no comments since you sent out this > > revision (so far at least). > > > > For this to go standards track, it would be best if this were a WG > > document which would mean we should reopen the WG. If so, then I > > suggest that the WG move this document toward PS. If we're going to > > reopen then we should decide whether to move RPSL RFC-2622 to DS, > > recycle as PS with changes, or merge with RPSLng and recycle as PS. > > The latter (combine RPSL and RPSLng) would be more work (a > *lot* more > > work) but it has been suggested and might improve clarity. > If the WG > > just wants to make RPSLng a WG doc and then advance it as PS, the WG > > might be able to do so with very strong concensus on the > list but more > > likely would have to reopen and meet at least once, then > close again. > > If the TCPLW WG can be considered as a valid precendence then this > > shouldn't be too much trouble, but IESG requirements for WG > procedures > > have changed (and are continuing to change). > > > > Curtis > > Curtis, > I'm not sure if there is big need to push this standards track or > to merge the RPSL and RPSLng documents. At this point, we (the > RPSLng group) have been working on this document for 2 years now and I > think the consensus is to go forward without re-opening the WG. > > Since there have been no further comments I'd like to go to > last call on draft-blunk-rpslng-02. As Randy is no longer an > A-D, I assume it is up to Bert Wijnen to put this before the IESG? > Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not. If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it. If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go through an AD (and I am willing to consider). Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed? Bert > Regards, > Larry Blunk > > > From bwijnen at lucent.com Tue Dec 23 10:54:50 2003 From: bwijnen at lucent.com (Wijnen, Bert (Bert)) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:54:50 +0100 Subject: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155032DA004@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> OK, I now found that the doc did have an IETF Last Call in late August/Early Sept. So I assume that the current version has addressed all those Last Call comments. I will put it on my plate (and have recorded this in ID-tracker). Pls ping me if you do not hear about my AD review by say Jan 5th Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry J. Blunk [mailto:ljb at merit.edu] > Sent: maandag 22 december 2003 23:10 > To: Pekka Savola > Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); curtis at fictitious.org; rpslng at ripe.net; > rps at ietf.org > Subject: RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) > > > On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 16:29, Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > > Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not. > > > If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and > > > since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it. > > > > > > If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need > > > to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF > > > Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go > through an AD > > > (and I am willing to consider). > > > > > > Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed? > > > > Well, when the last call was made, RPSLng document was deemed for > > Proposed Standard. And I agree with this. > > > > The confusion may have come from the fact that Curtis > mentioned that > > maybe the other parts of RPSL might be progressed on the standards > > track, to DS. Then re-forming a WG would be a good idea. > > > > But I think the issue above is premature. We need to ship > this, today > > if not yesterday :-). It's really needed. Individual submission > > seems fine by me -- everyone interested is reading these lists > > anyway, it won't get any better by cranking up the formal > > structures again :-). > > Okay, this sounds good. > > Bert, the RPSLng work is documented in the list archives hosted > by the RIPE NCC at > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/rpslng/index.html > We've had a number of formal/informal get-togethers at RIPE and IETF > meetings. If you don't want to get involved, I will make an > individual submission. > > Regards, > Larry > > From randy at psg.com Sun Dec 28 01:04:15 2003 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 19:04:15 -0500 Subject: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) References: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155032DA004@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> Message-ID: > OK, I now found that the doc did have an IETF Last Call > in late August/Early Sept. and there were technical objections which have not been addressed randy