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

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@laptoy770.fictitious.org>]

In message <3F6E3574.1040300@mrp.net>, Mark Prior writes:
> 
> Personally I would prefer it if RPSLng was a super set of RPSL and from 
> my point of view RPSLng policy = RPSL policy would be really nice. I 
> still fail to see why we need most of the mp-* stuff anyway.
> 
> Mark.


Mark,

How is RPSLng not a superset of RPSL?  Nothing has been removed from
RPSL.

The issue is just how do you make transition easiest, supporting older
RPSL only clients.  If you just extend import rather than rename it
mp-import and extend it, then old RPSL only clients will consider you
autnum broken.  If you include mp-import but forget to reflect you
IPv4 policy in plain import then the old RPSL client will pick up a
subset of you policy.

In either case, extending import, or adding mp-import and putting the
extensions there, it would make for a smoother transition if the
server code could recognize old clients and feed them with objects
translated into plain RPSL.

Curtis