Pekka Savola wrote:
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.
That pretty much summarises my position. I will also comment that when we migrated from RIPE-181 to RPSL we also had a backward compatibility problem but that didn't seem to be a problem back then so I don't see why it's now suddenly a problem. Mark.