In message <1074010929.3795.45.camel@ablate.merit.edu>, "Larry J. Blunk" writes :
On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 03:24, Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
(I tailed down the Cc: list..)
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
OK, I now found that the doc did have an IETF Last Call in late August/Early Sept.
and there were technical objections which have not been addressed
Thanks, Randy, for reminding about that.
Based on some off-list discussion, the technical objections being referred to are the comments from Mark Prior on the list, one of them copied below.
I'll try to summarize the loooo-ong thread somehow. Mark believes that the current RPSLng proposition unnecessarily adds complexity to the operators' use of the language, as e.g. IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, peerings, etc. could all be facilitated by redefining the current attributes etc. -- and whichever would be returned could be evaluated based on the context. As the number of operators using the language is extremely high (and we'd like it to be higher :-) compared to the registry/tool implementations, Mark argues that optimizing for the simplicity to the operators is the most important goal.
Curtis objects to this mainly based on the fact that this would break the backward compatibility for the clients which do not expect to receive IPv6 data back from their queries. This could be easily fixed e.g. in tools like IRRToolSet, but that there are a probably a number of hacks built on top of perl, telnetting to port 43, or whatever, which might not be equally fortunate.
Workarounds to this seem to be adding some kind of version negotiation or inclusion to the whois protocol (in the future, maybe using CRISP), so that only the clients who signal "yes, I can process IPv6 records!" would activate the IPv6 context processing. This could also be passed to the whois server with an option, like '--use-rpslng' or '-6'. Or maybe the client would state which records it wants to get, e.g. '-6' for only v6 records, '-4' for only v4 records, nothing (or -N (or something, for "NEW", otherwise only v4 would be returned :) for both). At least RIPE database allows the use of '-Vxxx' verstion string to tell about the version of the client software.
The exact details of how this method would work out would need to be fleshed out. Any takers?
I don't believe this would be particularly productive. These are implementation details which are really outside the scope of the RPSLng work. I don't see the objections to RPSLng as objective technical issues, but rather subjective preferences.
I'll agree with that. So if any comments I made having to do with transition and backwards compatibility are holding this up, comments which I beleive I made as suggestions, then please consider those to be resolved issues.
Personally, when I was trying to form an opinion on this subject, I found myself thinking that Mark's proposal addresses only IPv4/IPv6 case. It doesn't seem to address how one could specify different unicast/multicast policies, or how to specify different v4/v6 policies. This is also one goal of RPSLng.. even though the major operators who do have multicast or v6 often want their policies to be the same.
How would this work out if a "more intelligence" model was adopted?
(I'm personally a bit unsure whether a "more intelligence in the tools" -model would or would not make sense at this point, but I think I can see both sides of the argument..)
It is very difficult to judge the impact of such a model without having a complete census of the various tools in use by ISP's. For example, C&W has an extensive set of in-house developed tools which interact with IRR's. Is it fair to ask them to hack up their tools to fit this model?
Could we get some form of discussion and maybe consensus on what would seem to be the right way forward? :-)
I think we have already reached the point of "rough" consensus. Again, I view the expressed objections as subjective preferences rather than solid technical beefs with the specification.
Regards, Larry
I agree here too. Perhaps Mark can tell us whether he has any specific suggestions for changing the language from what is currently proposed. Curtis
=========== Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:00:06 +0930 From: Mark Prior <mrp@mrp.net> To: curtis@fictitious.org Cc: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, iesg@ietf.org, rpslng@ripe.net, rps@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard
Curtis Villamizar wrote:
How is RPSLng not a superset of RPSL? Nothing has been removed from RPSL.
Superset is probably not the best word to describe what I want.
The issue is just how do you make transition easiest, supporting older RPSL only clients. If you just extend import rather than rename it mp-import and extend it, then old RPSL only clients will consider you autnum broken. If you include mp-import but forget to reflect you IPv4 policy in plain import then the old RPSL client will pick up a subset of you policy.
In either case, extending import, or adding mp-import and putting the extensions there, it would make for a smoother transition if the server code could recognize old clients and feed them with objects translated into plain RPSL.
I think I have been consistent in wanting the smarts to be in the software and not the language. I would prefer to overload the syntax then create new syntax and let the software work out what is required. We don't use different syntax in computer languages when we want to operate on integers rather than reals so why make the distinction in RPSL? If we have a route object that has a IPv6 address in it surely the software can work out if it wants it or not given it's current context?
I know you (and others :-) keep on about the old clients but we have left them behind once before in the transition from RIPE 181 to RPSL so do it again but this time lets leave some mechanism behind so that when we need (RPSLng)ng we don't go through this pain yet again. Saying it's not part of the language is a pathetic excuse in my book for not fixing it. If we need a "shim" document to describe the interaction between a server and a client then lets do it. It would make the client software writers life a lot easier if there weren't (at least) 3 server interaction languages to deal with.
Mark. ==========
_______________________________________________ Rps mailing list Rps@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rps