Re: [Rps] Re: Last Call: 'RPSLng' to Proposed Standard

[Mark Prior <mrp@mrp.net>]

Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> Why don't you try it one more time.  I don't remember seeing anything
> on the RPS mailing list in a long time so you must have given up quite
> some time ago or not copied the RPS mailing list.
I was probably just using the rpslng list.

> It would be best if you gave specific syntax changes you'd like to see
> and why, plus how to transition to the new syntax.
My argument has always been about making is easier for the poor user and 
pushing the complexity to the software. This meant I wanted most of the 
syntax to remain the same, with optional phrases for the MP bits and 
certainly not grow "MP" variants of import, export, etc. Also I believed 
that the software could work out from its context if it wanted a IPv4 
address or a IPv6 one and so there only needed to be one route object.

The complaints about this approach seemed to revolve around backward 
compatability with existing software and my approach to that was to get 
newer software to perform some handshake with the server to say what it 
wanted otherwise the server would just return data acceptable to a RPSL 
client.

Mark.