> On Oct 19, 2020, at 18:40, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> When I read that, I assumed that such an attribute would be out of
>> scope of this document and that would be a target of future work to
>> happen in RIPE (perhaps?).
>
> yep
>
>> If this draft is intended to ALSO propose that, I would clearly
>> describe the intended geofeed: attribute with examples and any
>> additional links to work in RIPE.
>
> how about
>
> Ideally, RPSL would be augmented to define a new RPSL geofeed:
> attribute in the inetnum: class. Until such time, this document
> defines the syntax of a Geofeed remarks: attribute which contains an
> HTTPS URL of a geofeed file. The format MUST be as in this example,
> "remarks: Geofeed " followed by a URL which will vary.
>
> inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example
> remarks: Geofeed https://example.com/geofeed.csv
>
> While we leave global agreement of RPSL modification to the relevant
> parties, we suggest that a proper geofeed: attribute in the inetnum:
> class be simply "geofeed: " followed by a URL which will vary.
>
> inetnum: 192.0.2.0/24 # example
> geofeed: https://example.com/geofeed.csv
>
> Any particular inetnum: object MAY have, at most, one geofeed
> reference, whether a remark: or a proper geofeed: attribute when one
> is defined.
I like this new text better, especially the last paragraph on how the two might
interoperate.
Joe
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
