Subject: Amended RPS Work Group Charter

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 20:51:03 -0500

The amended RPS Work Group Charter is below.  I believe it reflects
the consensus at the work group meeting.  There was some indication
that a few people might suggest further change and agreement that any
further change would be disussed on the mailing list.

If you have comments, please make them some time in the next few
weeks.  At the meeting we agreed to close the period for comment, on
Thursday, Jan 7, 1999.  That's four weeks after the WG meeting (longer
than the usual comment period due to holidays).

I'll be taking some vacation time so my response to comments may be
quite slow at times.

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.

   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. 

   Summer 1999	Advance draft-ietf-rps-dist to Proposed 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)

---

From: Mark Prior <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 12:41:58 +1030

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.

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:20:24 -0500

> sure that it would be ready for advancement in spring.

Oops.  Good point.  This was just an oversight on my part.

> and so it would just vapourize.

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

Curtis

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:26:26 +0100

>                draft-ietf-rps-dbsec-pgp-authent, and

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

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Cengiz Alaettinoglu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:16:23 -0800 (PST)

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

-- 
Cengiz Alaettinoglu           Information Sciences Institute
http://www.isi.edu/~cengiz    University of Southern California

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:31:52 +1300

> 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

---

From: Mark Prior <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 08:49:31 +1030

I would think they should all be separate.

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

Mark.