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

On 2015-11-19 15:20, 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.

Certainly.

> 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) 
> 
> I guess your real question is "is it worth the effort?".

Yes, more or less. But to be more specific, just submit a query for "rpsl"
and have fun.

The first one that come up for me is:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_Policy_Specification_Language

The next ones are:

   http://www.irr.net/docs/rpsl.html (Copyright © 2011)

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2622 (June 1999)

   https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/rpsl (....see RFC 2622)
	The migration from the old RIPE Database (RIPE-181) to the RPSL
	version of the RIPE Database has been completed in 2001.

That's the thing that worries me, this disconnect between current reality
and prominent, but *terribly* outdated, documentation.

> 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.

Just wondering, whether this could be a topic for an intern or a project?

> (I'm happy to act as a reviewer, but can't author anything like this.)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Shane

Thanks for the immediate reply,
Wilfried