Subject: Reminder - Last call (was: Re: Amended RPS Work Group Charter)

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 14:15:45 -0500

Just a reminder to comment before Jan 7 if you have any comments.  We
issued an extended last call on the Work Group Charter.  The proposed
charter further ammended to reflect comments appears below followed by
the comments so far.

Changes are:

  1.  Changed Spring to April.  Changed Summer to August.

  2.  Separated milestones for April that are not interdependent.

  3.  Added "Advance RPSL to Draft Standard" but put it at December
      since we must wait at least 6 months after IESG approval of the
      reissued Proposed Standard.

  4.  We'll be advancing draft-ietf-rps-appl-rpsl to Informational and
      draft-ietf-rps-transition to vapor.

The biggest controversy so far is the choice of the word "spring" to
describe a milestone date which is now resolved.  :-)

Curtis

Routing Policy System (rps)
 ---------------------------

 Charter
 Last Modified: ---new-date-here---

 Current Status: Active Working Group

 Chair(s):
     Cengiz Alaettinoglu <[email-masked]>
     Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>

 Operations and Management Area Director(s):
     Harald Alvestrand  <[email-masked]>
     Bert Wijnen  <[email-masked]>

 Operations and Management Area Advisor:
     Bert Wijnen  <[email-masked]>

 Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion:[email-masked]
     To Subscribe:      [email-masked]
     Archive:           ftp://ftp.isi.edu/rps

Description of Working Group:

The Routing Policy System Working Group intends to provide
standardization of protocols and recommended practices neccesary to
support interoperability of the Internet Routing Registry (IRR).  The
IRR has been in use since 1995 based initially on the RIPE-181 policy
language.

The activities of the RPS Working Group shall include (1) defining a
language, referred to as Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL),
for describing routing policy constraints, (2) defining a simple and
robust distributed registry model for publishing routing policy
constraints, and (3) providing a forum for the discussion of tools
for analysing registered policy constraints, for checking global
consistency, for generating router configurations, and for diagnosing
operational routing problems.

 Goals and Milestones:

   Dec 1998	Reissue RPSL as a Proposed Standard with modifications
		resulting from deployment experience.

   Apr 1999	Advance draft-ietf-rps-appl-rpsl to Informational and
		withdraw draft-ietf-rps-transition.

   Apr 1999	Advance draft-ietf-rps-dbsec-pgp-authent to Proposed
		Standard.

   Apr 1999	Advance draft-ietf-rps-auth to Proposed Standard. 

   Aug 1999	Advance draft-ietf-rps-dist to Proposed Standard.

   Dec 1999     Advance RPSL to Draft Standard.

 Internet-Drafts:

  Posted   Revised       I-D Title  <Filename>
  ------   -------   ------------------------------------------
 Mar 1997  Nov 1998  <draft-ietf-rps-transition-02.txt>
		     RIPE-181 to RPSL Transition Plan

 Mar 1997  Jul 1998  <draft-ietf-rps-appl-rpsl-02.txt,.ps>
		     Using RPSL in Practice

 Mar 1998  May 1998  <draft-ietf-rps-auth-01.txt,.ps>
		     Routing Policy System Security

 Sep 1998  Sep 1998  <draft-ietf-rps-dist-00.txt,.ps>
                     Distributed Routing Policy System

 Nov 1998  Nov 1998  <draft-ietf-rps-appl-rpsl-03.txt,.ps>
                     Using RPSL in Practice

 Nov 1998  Nov 1998  <draft-ietf-rps-dbsec-pgp-authent-00.txt>
                     PGP authentication for RIPE database updates

 Nov 1998  Nov 1998  <draft-ietf-rps-rpsl-v2-00.txt,.ps>
                     Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)

 Request For Comments:

  RFC  Stat Published       Title
- ------- -- ----------     -----------------------------------------
RFC2280 PS   Jan 1998     Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL)

============ comments so far ============

: Mark Prior <[email-masked]>

        Spring 1999     Advance draft-ietf-rps-transition,
                draft-ietf-rps-appl-rpsl,
                draft-ietf-rps-dbsec-pgp-authent, and
                draft-ietf-rps-auth to
                Proposed Standard.

I don't believe these are all to be advanced to PS, I thought the
"Using RPSL in Practice" document would be informational. I'm also not
sure that it would be ready for advancement in spring.

I thought the original intent of the transition document was to keep
it an I-D and let it document the progress of the transition. When the
transition was finished then there would be no need for the document
and so it would just vapourize.

Mark.

curtis>  OK.  Then the milestone is advance draft-ietf-rps-appl-rpsl to
curtis>  informational and vaporize draft-ietf-rps-transition.  ;-)

Curtis

: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>

At 12:41 11.12.98 +1030, Mark Prior wrote:
>        Spring 1999     Advance draft-ietf-rps-transition,
>                draft-ietf-rps-appl-rpsl,
>                draft-ietf-rps-dbsec-pgp-authent, and
>                draft-ietf-rps-auth to
>                Proposed Standard.
>

Useful trick of milestone writing:
If I-Ds are linked to such a degree that one can't be published without
the other, they should be on the same milestone.

If they are not, they should be separate milestones, even if they are
the same date.

BTW, "spring" isn't a month name.

                Harald A

: Cengiz Alaettinoglu <[email-masked]>

Curtis,

The charter and milestones seems to capture the WG discussions.  We
also agreed to move RPSL to draft standard 6 months after it becomes
proposed standard again. Please add it as a milestone to summer 1999.

Lets use April instead of spring and August instead of summer as they
are a month after the IETF's.

Cengiz

: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>

On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 11:16:23AM -0800, Cengiz Alaettinoglu wrote:
> 
> Lets use April instead of spring and August instead of summer as they
> are a month after the IETF's.

Also, August is in Winter and April is in Autumn, so the original wording
was extremely confusing.

You blinkered northern-hemispherics! :)

Joe

: Mark Prior <[email-masked]>

     If they are not, they should be separate milestones, even if they are
     the same date.

I would think they should all be separate.

     BTW, "spring" isn't a month name.

And where I'm from it's not even the same range of months :-)

Mark.