I'd like to issue a last call to the list for draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt prior to going to the IESG. Mark, it seems the extensions to community_elm are sufficiently complex and outside the scope of this draft that they should not be included. However, I'd appreciate hearing feedback from others (some text would be nice as well) about whether or not they think this is important enough to hold up the draft for inclusion. -Larry Larry J. Blunk wrote:
On Thursday 13 May 2004 20:46, Mark Prior wrote:
Larry J. Blunk wrote:
The draft is available at www.radb.net/rpslng-05.html. The structured syntax has been updated to reflect comments by Cengiz and Mark. Note that the optional afi field is now outside the brackets in refine and except expressions. I believe this is simpler and more intuitive. We may wish to simplify further and only allow an initial afi specification on policy expressions (similar to the optional protocol fields). However, I don't have a strong opinion on this.
Can we also "fix" community_elm so that you can use wildcards, or preferably regular expressions, on each side of the ":". For example, it would be useful to be able to delete(7575:*) rather than have to list them, although delete(7575:[1-9][0-9]{3}) would be better.
Mark.
Unfortunately, the dictionary "typedef" support seems a bit too limited to extend community_elm like this. Do you have any proposed text for the draft? It seems like a new "community_exp" pre-defined type would need to be added to the dictionary. The support for "<num>:<num>" syntax to express "integers" is already a bit of a hack added for communities.
Speaking of communities, should the RFC3765 "NOPEER" community be added to the well-known community enum list?
-Larry