RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)
"Larry J. Blunk" <ljb@merit.edu> Mon, 22 December 2003 23:05 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14969 for <rps-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:05:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYZ6l-00055L-2L; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:05:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYZ5l-00052o-QO for rps@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:04:02 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14657 for <rps@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:03:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZ5i-0004ZG-00 for rps@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:03:58 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYZ53-0004R7-00 for rps@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:03:19 -0500
Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYYut-0002LS-00 for rps@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:52:47 -0500
Received: from segue.merit.edu ([198.108.1.41]) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AYYKm-0002px-Jr for rps@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:15:28 -0500
Received: from ablate.merit.edu (ablate.merit.edu [198.108.62.151]) by segue.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E44F5DE73; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:06:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)
From: "Larry J. Blunk" <ljb@merit.edu>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, curtis@fictitious.org, rpslng@ripe.net, rps@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312222326230.6454-100000@netcore.fi>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312222326230.6454-100000@netcore.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Merit Network, Inc.
Message-Id: <1072130979.3794.41.camel@ablate.merit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: rps-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: rps-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: rps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rps>, <mailto:rps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Routing Policy System <rps.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:rps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rps>, <mailto:rps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/rps/>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:09:39 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 16:29, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote: > > Yes, but I need to know what you want, Standards track or not. > > If you want it standards track, then you need to find an AD, and > > since RPSL was an old OPS WG, I am willing to consider it. > > > > If you want it to be informational, then I am not sure if I need > > to get involved. However, if you want IETF review and an IETF > > Last Call, then it is probably still a good idea to go through an AD > > (and I am willing to consider). > > > > Can you point me to archives where your work was discussed? > > Well, when the last call was made, RPSLng document was deemed for > Proposed Standard. And I agree with this. > > The confusion may have come from the fact that Curtis mentioned that > maybe the other parts of RPSL might be progressed on the standards > track, to DS. Then re-forming a WG would be a good idea. > > But I think the issue above is premature. We need to ship this, today > if not yesterday :-). It's really needed. Individual submission > seems fine by me -- everyone interested is reading these lists > anyway, it won't get any better by cranking up the formal > structures again :-). Okay, this sounds good. Bert, the RPSLng work is documented in the list archives hosted by the RIPE NCC at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/rpslng/index.html We've had a number of formal/informal get-togethers at RIPE and IETF meetings. If you don't want to get involved, I will make an individual submission. Regards, Larry _______________________________________________ Rps mailing list Rps@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rps
- RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) Larry J. Blunk
- RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) Randy Bush
- Separate attributes vs context-aware software [RE… Pekka Savola
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Mark Prior
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Larry J. Blunk
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Randy Bush
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Larry J. Blunk
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Randy Bush
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Curtis Villamizar
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… David Kessens
- RE: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Frank Bohnsack
- Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware software… Pekka Savola
- [Rps] Re: Separate attributes vs context-aware so… Simon Leinen
- Re: [Rps] Re: Separate attributes vs context-awar… Andrei Robachevsky