[Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft

On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 12:18, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On 21 Nov 2003, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> >   I forgot to add that there is also an HTML version
> > available at www.radb.net/rpslng.html
> 
> Sorry.. I tried to follow up on this quicker, but forgot.
> 
> A glanced through the diffs between the documents.  Seems pretty good.  
> The one high-level comment still left is that I think it would
> probably make a bit more sense to specify that "ipv4" means
> "ipv4.unicast,ipv4.multicast" and the same for IPv6 -- that is, do not
> assume that only unicast would be specified by default.  But I don't
> feel really strongly about this.

   Okay, I guess that since you do not feel strongly about this, I will
leave it as is.  If there is anyone who feels very strongly about
this, please speak-up now.

> 
> A couple of minor issues..
> 
>    <remote-endpoint-address> indicates the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the
>    remote endpoint of the tunnel. The address family must match that of
>    the local endpoint. <encapsulation> denotes the encapsulation used in
>    the tunnel and is one of {GRE,IPinIP}.  Routing policies for these
>    routers should be described in the appropriate classes (eg. (e.g.
>    aut-num).
> 
> ==> This was changed to remove IPv6inIP (for the good), but maybe one 
> should add a brief note on this, like reword to:
> 
>    <remote-endpoint-address> indicates the IPv4 or IPv6 address of the
>    remote endpoint of the tunnel. The address family must match that of
>    the local endpoint. <encapsulation> denotes the encapsulation used in
>    the tunnel and is one of {GRE,IPinIP} (note the outer and inner IP 
>    protocol versions can be deduced from the interface context -- so 
>    e.g., IPv6-in-IPv4 encapsulation is just IPinIP).  Routing policies 
>    for these routers should be described in the appropriate classes 
>    (eg. (e.g. aut-num).
> 
> 

   Okay, I've updated the wording as suggested.

> nits:
> 
> Abstract
> 
>    This memo presents a new set of simple extensions to the Routing
>    Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [1] enabling the language to
>    document routing policies for the IPv6 and multicast address families
>    currently used in the Internet.
> 
> ==> remove the reference ([1]) from the abstract, it isn't allowed per 
> IESG's ID-nits.  It's good as it is without it.
> ==> I'd also state a very obvious thing that RPSLng is a superset of 
> RPSL; this could be done by rewording s/enabling the language to 
> document/enabling the language to also document/ 

  Done.  By the way, the Abstract seems a bit light (the I-D guidelines
recommends have 5-10 lines in the Abstract).  Does anyone think we
should add more text here?

> 
> The
>    keyword "ANY" many also be used instead of prefix ranges
> 
> ==> s/many/may/ ?

  Fixed. Thanks.

  I've gone ahead and submitted an -02 draft to the IETF.   Please
let me know if there are any other objections/concerns.

 -Larry

_______________________________________________
Rps mailing list
Rps@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rps