To Randy's "remarks: field comment I would agree, it really isn't
desirable to make RIR police Remarks: and write NLP parsers to find
these things.
SHOULD NOT is better, guidance to users, no obligation to manage in
the RIR whois update process
-G
___
I have read this version and checked the difference to the prior
version. It addressed specific issues I understood, it looks to
address ambiguities in the encoding and representation of its
structure which make it much more likely people can interoperate
correctly.
I think overall this is a
I support adoption. This is a worthwhile update, its very simple and direct.
Wider use of Geofeed would be net-beneficial for understanding how IP
addresses are deployed, and who better to state that than the delegate
with an ability to prove their locus of control with a signature?
Sure, they
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 2:52 AM Randy Bush wrote:
>
> we have pushed draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update-01, see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ymbk-opsawg-9092-update/
> and asked to have a few minutes for it on the agenda next month.
>
> as the document says
>
> Changes from [RFC9092]
> 2. -
>
>then BASE64 encoded and line wrapped to 72 or fewer characters.
>
> FP: Less of a comment and more of a question: what is the reason for setting
> the line length, and specifically to 72 (or fewer) characters?
RPSL uses a 6 character indent from the 80 column days to denote
I also think Randy's version is better because of two things:
1) it aligns with reality: fields are added to RPSL as a response of
operator driven demand.
2) it aligns with the least cost path out: the likelihood of a reprise
or -bis of RPSL completing in the short or medium term in either IETF
A 04 version has gone up, with sensible edits to refine references to
the functional code (RSC) signing example, and no shepherd process is
required for this change: its good, useful and doesn't alter any
normative or IDNIT behaviour as I see it.
cheers
-George
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 6:01 AM
Thats a good question. Whois lookups CAN ask for superior covering
blocks. Its in the protocol to do it (flags) in the port 43 query. I
don't think its normal.
This is the problem with data services which push to the most specific
record (and, in Whois, many exist) and inclusion of signing, which
This resolved all but two downref issues:
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5485
** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 8805
As discussed, I think these cannot resolve, and will have to be
discussed out with the AD and IESG during review.
There
please push the 03. I think it is very likely to close all the low-level Nits.
-G
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 4:55 AM Randy Bush wrote:
>
> thanks ggm for a stunningly thorough shepherd's report. i have an -03
> revsion in an emacs buffer addressing your comments which i will publish
> when you,
document
> addresses a real world problem, of merit. The solution is plausible
> and low cost for high gain.
>
> If there was a MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, Media Type or other
> expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a
> Media Type review, on what date was
n RPSL systems
author and supports the proposal.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd?
The document Shepherd is George Michaelson g...@apnic.net
Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The responsible Area Director is Robert Wilton
(3) Briefly describe the review of this d
I think this is useful.
It shows how tools that operations people are familiar with can be
used to improve the trust in the feed.
Nice work Job!
-G
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 12:25 PM Job Snijders
wrote:
>
> Dear Randy, working group,
>
> It appears to me you really wanted to ask 'how the heck
13 matches
Mail list logo
