> "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." > > If the ideal solution is to produce a standards track document that > creates a new RPSL attribute, I don't understand why the Working Group > didn't simply do that, instead of messing with the remarks and then > coming up with a transition plan for moving from this design to the > future one.
the word "ideally" was meant to signal "not gonna happen." RPSL as in use today varies radically from the RPS as documented by the ietf, and varies between RIRs and between software sets. the last ietf attempt to codify RPSLng was a disaster; when i first became an AD i was told to shut the wg down asap and did so. today, the main thread of RPSL definition is in the RIPE community and the RIPE/NCC implementation. this is in the process of adopting the geofeed: attribute in the INETNUM class. i believe the irrd open source implementation is also following. that's as good as it is likely to get. sorry. randy _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
