RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)

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