[db-wg] revisiting rpsl-related set of rcf documents?

HI all

On 19/11/2015 14:20, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Wilfried,
>
> At 2015-11-19 14:40:53 +0200
> Wilfried Woeber <woeber at cc.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>
>> Following up on the discussion here, during the DB-WG session in Bucharest,
>> where changes to different aspects of using the RIPE registry database
>>
>> - including a reference to discussions relating to cross-RIR authorisation -
>>
>> I'd like to ask the following question to the community:
>>
>> Is it about time to revisit the set of RFCs and either get them updated to
>> properly reflect the (more) current reality,
>>
>> or
>>
>> consciously have them declared historic and overtaken by events?
>>
>> What's your point of view?
>
> hm... hard to say. Certainly RFC 2622 is a stunningly bad RFC, and RFC
> 2725 is better but hardly great (I had questions while implementing
> RFC 2622 in the past and was told "look at the RtConfig code to see
> how it works" when I found inconsistencies). RFC 2769 is an interesting
> read, if you like science fiction. ;)
>
> It would be effort to produce a modern set of RPSL RFC's. It could be
> done without a *huge* effort if it is possible to replace a
> standards-track RFC without setting up an IETF working group. If
> booting a working group is required then I would recommend not to do
> it (people who understand IETF process better than me may have
> other takes on this). :)
>
> Alternately RIPE could produce a set of RIPE documents with "modern"
> RPSL described. (RIPE-681? :P)

The RIPE Database was built on a RIPE interpretation of RPSL 14+ years 
ago. Since then many further changes and additions have been made. So I 
like Shane's suggestion to basically take the original RFCs and just 
update them to reflect reality and publish them as RIPE docs.

So no one is asking the IETF to formally produce a new set of documents 
for RPSL, we simply document the version of RPSL used by the 
RIPE/APNIC/AFRINIC Databases. As there are only slight differences 
between the versions of RPSL used by these 3 DBs it may be wise to 
document that as well.

cheeers
denis

>
> I guess your real question is "is it worth the effort?". It doesn't
> seem like RPSL will disappear any time soon, so in principle it seems
> like updating the documentation is worth it. If this is true, I guess
> the question is coming up with the time/money for someone to do this.
> (I'm happy to act as a reviewer, but can't author anything like this.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Shane
>