LAST CALL -- draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt has been submitted

Hi all,

On 2004-05-24 14:35:40 -0400, Larry Blunk wrote:
>    I'd like to issue a last call to the list for
> draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt prior to going to the IESG.

I'd say let's go ahead.


>    Mark, it seems the extensions to community_elm are
> sufficiently complex and outside the scope of this draft
> that they should not be included. 

I agree that this is outside the scope of this effort.
Even if there are many other things that can be fixed
or improved in RPSL RFC, they will take considerable time.

Regards,
-engin

> However, I'd appreciate
> hearing feedback from others (some text would be nice as
> well) about whether or not they think this is important
> enough to hold up the draft for inclusion.
> 
>  -Larry
> 
> 
> 
> Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> >On Thursday 13 May 2004 20:46, Mark Prior wrote:
> >
> >>Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> >>
> >>>    The draft is available at www.radb.net/rpslng-05.html.  The
> >>>structured syntax has been updated to reflect comments by Cengiz and
> >>>Mark.  Note that the optional afi field is now outside the brackets in
> >>>refine and except expressions.  I believe this is simpler and more
> >>>intuitive.  We may wish to simplify further and only allow an initial afi
> >>>specification on policy expressions (similar to the optional protocol
> >>>fields).  However, I don't have a strong opinion on this.
> >>
> >>Can we also "fix" community_elm so that you can use wildcards, or
> >>preferably regular expressions, on each side of the ":". For example, it
> >>would be useful to be able to delete(7575:*) rather than have to list
> >>them, although delete(7575:[1-9][0-9]{3}) would be better.
> >>
> >>Mark.
> >
> >
> >     Unfortunately, the dictionary "typedef" support seems a bit too 
> >     limited
> >to extend community_elm like this.  Do you have any proposed text for
> >the draft?   It seems like a new "community_exp" pre-defined type would 
> >need
> >to be added to the dictionary.    The support for "<num>:<num>"  syntax to
> >express "integers" is already a bit of a hack added for communities.
> >
> >     Speaking of communities, should the RFC3765 "NOPEER" community be
> >added to the well-known community enum list?
> >
> >  -Larry
> >
> >

-- 
Engin Gunduz
RIPE NCC Software Engineering Department