August 2003 - rpslng - mailman.ripe.net

Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard
by The IESG 21 Nov '03

21 Nov '03

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider 'RPSLng' <draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard. This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg(a)ietf.org or ietf(a)ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-09-23. File(s) can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt

6 40

RE: LAST CALL REQUEST - draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt
by Randy Bush 26 Aug '03

26 Aug '03

> May I assume that all the references are NORMATIVE ?? yes, they need to be labeled properly. but i do not think [3] is. and it needs a ripe doc number. randy

3 3

Re: LAST CALL REQUEST - draft-blunk-rpslng-01.txt
by Joao Damas 26 Aug '03

26 Aug '03

Randy, We can split the references into normative and not and give the number for the RIPE doc in [3] I think the draft was finished before the new requirement to explicitly label references as (non-)normative. Shall this be done now or after the last call is over? Joao PS: I posted this a moment ago with the wrong From, so you may see a duplicate later. On Tuesday, Aug 26, 2003, at 13:37 Europe/Amsterdam, Randy Bush wrote: >> May I assume that all the references are NORMATIVE ?? > > yes, they need to be labeled properly. > > but i do not think [3] is. and it needs a ripe doc number. > > randy > >

1 0

RE: RPSL ng - next steps
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 26 Aug '03

26 Aug '03

Thanks for the advice, Randy! Wilfried. ______________________________________________________________________ From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:08:59 +0900 To: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> CC: joao(a)psg.com, rpslng(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: RPSL ng - next steps > But, what is the procedure here? Is it still (procedurally) easy to make > adjustments to the text when it has moved to PS already? yes, you can recycle at ps until you are ready to go to draft std. > I'd expect a couple of comments, and maybe change proposals, as soon as > we have implementations available and folks start to play with/use that. this is not unusual randy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: RPSL ng - next steps
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 26 Aug '03

26 Aug '03

Hi Joao! >We would like to request that this draft is published as a proposed >standard. That is the aim, I agree. But, what is the procedure here? Is it still (procedurally) easy to make adjustments to the text when it has moved to PS already? I'd expect a couple of comments, and maybe change proposals, as soon as we have implementations available and folks start to play with/use that. Wilfried.

3 2

RPSL ng - next steps
by Joao Damas 26 Aug '03

26 Aug '03

Randy, all, I have been in touch with Andrei and Larry (co-authors) recently to discuss the status of the -01 draft. I think we are agreed that this is ready to move forward. There have been no further comments on the latest draft as sent to the list by Larry last month, which incorporated the discussions from earlier in the year. The RIPE NCC has announced their implementation and I believe Merit is also doing one. We would like to request that this draft is published as a proposed standard. The only other list I can think of where there might be people who could provide input on this is the rps(a)ietf.org list, though I believe everyone that had an interest is subscribed to the rpslng list. Regards, Joao

1 0