Subject: Last Call: 'Routing Policy Specification Language next generation (RPSLng)' to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:50:50 -0400

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the 
following document:

- 'Routing Policy Specification Language next generation (RPSLng) '
   <draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
[email-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by 2004-06-17.

Normally IETF Last Calls for non-WG documents are 4 weeks. But an
earlier IETF Last Call was issued in Sept 2003. That was for revision
01 which resulted in a number of comments that have been addressed.
So we're doing a short (2-week) repeated IETF Last Call to ensure
the new rev is OK.

Here is a summary of changes from draft revision -01 to revision -05.

  1)  Table of contents was added to the document.

  2)  Section 2.1 on Ambiguity Resolution is new.  Much of text
       is directly derived from RFC 2622 to clarify ambiguity resolution
       between older import, export, and default policy specifications and
       new "mp-" policy specifications.

  3)  The Address Family Identifier (<afi>)  specification in "mp-"
       attributes was made optional.  The lack of an <afi> specification
       implies that a policy applies to all protocols (ipv4.unicast,
       ipv6.unicast, ipv4.multicast, ipv6.multicast).

  4)  The "any" pseudo address family was added to allow specifications such
        as "any.unicast" which is equivalent to "ipv4.unicast, ipv6.unicast".

  5)  Formal definition of new <ipv6-address>, <ipv6-address-prefix>, and
       <ipv6-address-prefix-range> RPSL types in section 2.4.   Previously,
       these types were referenced, but not fomally defined.

  6)  Bug fixes and addtional detail for structured policy syntax in
       section 2.5.    Note was made of an erroneous example in
       RFC2622 which employed "nested" expressions.   Such expressions
       are not permitted by RFC2622 and RPSLng syntax.  Only "cascaded"
       expressions are acceptable.

  7)  More expansive documentation for the <mp-filter> RPSL type (including
       examples) in section 2.5.2

  8)  Policy example in Section 2.5.3 used incorrect syntax and was fixed.

The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blunk-rpslng-05.txt

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce