On 2015-11-19 16:38, Tomas Hlavacek wrote:
Hi!
On 11/19/2015 02:20 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
Wilfried,
At 2015-11-19 14:40:53 +0200 Wilfried Woeber <woeber@cc.univie.ac.at> wrote:
Following up on the discussion here, during the DB-WG session in Bucharest, where changes to different aspects of using the RIPE registry database
- including a reference to discussions relating to cross-RIR authorisation -
I'd like to ask the following question to the community:
Is it about time to revisit the set of RFCs and either get them updated to properly reflect the (more) current reality,
or
consciously have them declared historic and overtaken by events?
What's your point of view?
hm... hard to say. Certainly RFC 2622 is a stunningly bad RFC, and RFC 2725 is better but hardly great (I had questions while implementing RFC 2622 in the past and was told "look at the RtConfig code to see how it works" when I found inconsistencies). RFC 2769 is an interesting read, if you like science fiction. ;)
Is it only a matter of bad RFCs?
Probably not exclusively, but imho this is a major aspect.
From my point of view it might help to have also software that would help with producing RPSL. I can imagine a lot of stuff ranging from a simple HTML form that would guide people through selection of their peers and setting basic filters, to things like reversing RtConfig and pre-create RPSL from Cisco/Juniper/... configs.
Interesting idea!
As the matter of fact I thought about creating some helper software, but out of desperation induced by reading RFC 2622 I rather created a (incomplete) RPSL parser in Python and ran the measurements I presented on today's WG.
Which leads me to the question: Do you think that it make sense to put an effort into creating a software for current RPSL?
I don't have a strong opinion on this one. That’s the reason why I'd like to see contributions to this discussion from the wider community.
Or would it be better to wait for revisions of the formal documents or even for RDL to be finalized?
I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the pointer! Alas, when I had a look, the IETF page came back with: "IESG state Expired" and "This Internet-Draft is no longer active. [...]". Is there any follow-up activity in the IETF?
Tomas
Wilfried