how to proceed

  > epg at merit.edu writes:
  > 
  > We thought that if we could do both things (minimum set and some
  > extensions) in one step, we could get some valuable feedback and
  > begin making iterations to improve the syntax based on the response
  > of the US providers.

Wow!  You lot are really ambitious now.  Charge!  :-) :-) :-) :-)

  > The function of some of the extensions that we would like to rollout
  > are:
  > 	a.  community syntax
  > 	b.  expansion of the default syntax
  > 	c.  introduce exclusion and transit syntax
  > 	d.  syntax for AS_in and AS_out with network granularity
  > 	e.  syntax to describe peer gateway interactions/preferences
  > 
  > We have almost completed documenting these ideas and want to share them
  > with you.  

We are eagerly awaiting the docs! 

  > Guess we'd really like to hear your reaction to this approach. What we
  > are proposing will not delay our rollout of the routing registry 
  > announcement, and we are very interested in making this a joint
  > announcment - as well as working with you to refine the extensions.

Fine if you are chaging ahead with those.  We are currently busy with
the PRIDE guide and not doing much implementation work besides code
cleanup here and there.  We would probably leave you to work at the
leading edge of these extensions in the next few weeks. 

One concern we will have with all extensions is how the PRIDE tools can
make use of them.  We will need to consider this for each extension. 
Before implemnting them here we will also have to run them by the RIPE
routing and DB groups.  Of course this will be easy if there is
operational experience with them on your side of the pond. 

Daniel



-------- Logged at  Fri Feb 25 22:47:18 MET 1994  ---------