On 23/10/2013 05:29, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> I would support adopting this draft as a WG document. If it is, I will
> provide review on it. I do, however, suggest that the WG attempt to
> explicitly involve reviewers from RIPE, Merit, APNIC or other organizations
> that operate RPSL repositories since they are the parties most impacted by
> these changes.
the draft has been discussed to some degree in the database working group
at RIPE, but you're right that it would probably be best to confer with
other RIRs too.
My thoughts on the draft is that per-se there is nothing wrong with it, and
it will provide a backwards-compatible mechanism for an interesting
attribute which is relevant to ixp route server connectivity. The rationale
for using a new class attribute is that it's not possible to shoe-horn the
required semantics into mp-{import,export}.
And this is the problem: RPSL is broken enough that it's not possible to
extend the language in a backwards compatible way, and the only option for
stuff like this is to create a completely new class for an incremental
feature upgrade. Although I have no particular objection to this draft, I
think it shows that RPSL is too broken to put much serious development into
it, and that it would be more productive to look at creating a new alternative.
Nick
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
