[routing-wg] RPSL

Hi,

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 02:00:09PM +0000, ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> You are right, this has been an issue for many years. It is not only the problem of parsing RPSL but also an issue with people understanding it as a language and applying it correctly. But should this be an issue taken up by the IETF? Or do you think the RIPE Database could/should do something different to all other IRRs?

Not sure this is something for the DB WG to press, indeed.

I saw this mail in the routing-wg, which I find a more logical place to
argue about "where do we want to go with RPSL?" - or maybe even push it
to IETF.

But I have no hopes for IETF, so maybe not.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/routing-wg/attachments/20200514/925a8d84/attachment.sig>