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.
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
Hi, On 2003-08-26 13:00:48 +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
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.
I see two ways to go: - first, put the RPSLng implementation(s) into production, - get feedback, - then have the RFC or, - first have the RFC as PS - then put the implementation into production - then fix any problems with the RFC Requesting comments by preparing a prototype implementation did not really work. We have announced our prototype on 12 May 2003: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/db-wg/2003/msg00066.html No comments came so far. There is only one route6 object created (except the ones that NCC employees created for testing). In any case, I guess the community should decide how we must proceed. Best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group
participants (3)
-
Engin Gunduz -
Randy Bush -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet