On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 16:29, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not. If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it.
If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go through an AD (and I am willing to consider).
Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed?
Well, when the last call was made, RPSLng document was deemed for Proposed Standard. And I agree with this.
The confusion may have come from the fact that Curtis mentioned that maybe the other parts of RPSL might be progressed on the standards track, to DS. Then re-forming a WG would be a good idea.
But I think the issue above is premature. We need to ship this, today if not yesterday :-). It's really needed. Individual submission seems fine by me -- everyone interested is reading these lists anyway, it won't get any better by cranking up the formal structures again :-).
Okay, this sounds good. Bert, the RPSLng work is documented in the list archives hosted by the RIPE NCC at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/rpslng/index.html We've had a number of formal/informal get-togethers at RIPE and IETF meetings. If you don't want to get involved, I will make an individual submission. Regards, Larry