Hi Pedro,
On 23/08/11 11:29 PM, "Pedro Torres" <[email protected]> wrote: > Arturo, > > Who did define the RIR Statistics Exchange Format? > ftp://ftp.lacnic.net/pub/stats/lacnic/RIR-Statistics-Exchange-Format.txt > I believe it was a collection of RIR staff that defined the format. > Could it not be a IETF work? I think a RFC could be nice place to > define it because the way it is done today don't have any version > control, authors, obsoleted standard's, etc. IANA could use that > definition too... perhaps creating a new value to the 'status' column > or a new column: PRI. > > I like the RIR Statistics Exchange Format. It is an easily-parseable > representation. It is. And I use it too. > I don't like the IANA format because some important parts are > 'Footnotes': hardly-parseable. > indeed. > I would like to use a RFC to create my parser instead an unknown > defined doc that can change anytime. > > Terry, if you wanna extend your I-D to create a standart to all RIR's The RIRs have already done this work - I think I'll leave it to them to bring that to the IETF. > and an IETF WG is the right place to do this: I am available to help > you. > The extra column to the IANA IPv4/IPv6 registries is a simple add. Intended to satisfy a couple use cases. The RIR format is quite encompassing and has fields that I don't believe I would need to see in an IANA registry. Cheers Terry _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
