RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Tue, 23 December 2003 09:59 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA14211 for <rps-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:59:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjJf-0000K6-7Y; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:59:03 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjJZ-0000JA-BG for rps@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:58:57 -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 EAA14181 for <rps@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:58:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjJW-0006F1-00 for rps@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:58:54 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjG9-0006Bz-00 for rps@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:55:25 -0500
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163] helo=ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjG9-0006AW-00 for rps@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 04:55:25 -0500
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id hBN9sqe17314 for <rps@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:54:53 -0600 (CST)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <Z1K6NVST>; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:54:51 +0100
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155032DA004@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "Larry J. Blunk" <ljb@merit.edu>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, curtis@fictitious.org, rpslng@ripe.net, rps@ietf.org
Subject: RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: text/plain
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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
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: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:54:50 +0100
OK, I now found that the doc did have an IETF Last Call in late August/Early Sept. So I assume that the current version has addressed all those Last Call comments. I will put it on my plate (and have recorded this in ID-tracker). Pls ping me if you do not hear about my AD review by say Jan 5th Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry J. Blunk [mailto:ljb@merit.edu] > Sent: maandag 22 december 2003 23:10 > To: Pekka Savola > Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); curtis@fictitious.org; rpslng@ripe.net; > rps@ietf.org > Subject: RE: RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft) > > > 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