RPS WG (was Re: [Rps] Re: Latest RPSLng draft)

In message <1070985052.3794.5.camel@ablate.merit.edu>, "Larry J. Blunk" writes:
>   The latest draft is now up on the IETF repository --
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-02.txt
> 
>   I've also put an HTML copy at 
> http://www.radb.net/rpslng.html
> 
>   Does anyone have any objections to going to last call again?
> 
>  -Larry

No objections here.  There were no comments since you sent out this
revision (so far at least).

For this to go standards track, it would be best if this were a WG
document which would mean we should reopen the WG.  If so, then I
suggest that the WG move this document toward PS.  If we're going to
reopen then we should decide whether to move RPSL RFC-2622 to DS,
recycle as PS with changes, or merge with RPSLng and recycle as PS.
The latter (combine RPSL and RPSLng) would be more work (a *lot* more
work) but it has been suggested and might improve clarity.  If the WG
just wants to make RPSLng a WG doc and then advance it as PS, the WG
might be able to do so with very strong concensus on the list but more
likely would have to reopen and meet at least once, then close again.
If the TCPLW WG can be considered as a valid precendence then this
shouldn't be too much trouble, but IESG requirements for WG procedures
have changed (and are continuing to change).

Curtis

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