[ restricting my reply to the ap-wg list ] Thomas, Thomas Narten wrote:
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 November 2008.
I am opposed to this proposal because it seems completely inappropriate to use a PDP for something this straightforward and low-level.
the reason for having to use the PDP is the fact that registration format "ASDOT" is explicitely prescribed in the AS# distribution- policy doc. This was a conscious (but maybe unwise) decision, taken at a time when there was no (standards) rfc available. This has already been explained somewhere on the list(s) iirc.
Also, this issue goes beyond RIPE and is about development of an industry standard. It is not a RIPE-specific issue. There are more appropriate other fora for developing industry standards. RIPE (and indeed all RIRs) should defer to other industry bodies for development of technical standards.
Note that the IETF is currently finalizing the document draft-ietf-idr-as-representation-01.txt already. Indeed, the IESG will be formally considering it this week, so with a little bit of luck, it will be an RFC in a month.
At that point, it would be fine for RIPE to adopt that standard, but I would hope that it could do so without requiring a PDP. (Does RIPE generally need a PDP before it is allowed to start using an IETF standards?)
I presume in general the answer would be NO to your (question). But please stop bashing RIPE for respecting its own internal procedures.
Let's keep things simple please!
Indeed, but I guess you would not recommend to "simply" change a formally adopted policy document, would you? This could be seen as a nasty precedent...
PS, if there are any objections to draft-ietf-idr-as-representation-01.txt becoming the standard for ASN representation, make your opinions known to the IETF immediately!
Thomas
Wilfried.