[routing-wg]Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-09 New Policy Proposal (ASPLAIN Format for the Registration of 4-byte ASNs)

> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 17 November 2008.

I am opposed to this proposal because it seems completely
inappropriate to use a PDP for something this straightforward and
low-level.

Also, this issue goes beyond RIPE and is about development of an
industry standard. It is not a RIPE-specific issue. There are more
appropriate other fora for developing industry standards. RIPE (and
indeed all RIRs) should defer to other industry bodies for development
of technical standards.

Note that the IETF is currently finalizing the document
draft-ietf-idr-as-representation-01.txt already. Indeed, the IESG will
be formally considering it this week, so with a little bit of luck, it
will be an RFC in a month.

At that point, it would be fine for RIPE to adopt that standard, but I
would hope that it could do so without requiring a PDP. (Does RIPE
generally need a PDP before it is allowed to start using an IETF
standards?)

Let's keep things simple please!

PS, if there are any objections to
draft-ietf-idr-as-representation-01.txt becoming the standard for ASN
representation, make your opinions known to the IETF immediately!

Thomas