Guidelines for Extending RPSL
draft-ietf-rps-extending-00

Document Type Expired Internet-Draft (rps WG)
Authors Cengiz Alaettinoglu  , David Kessens 
Last updated 1997-11-21
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats
Expired & archived
pdf htmlized (tools) htmlized bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state Expired
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)

This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft can be found at
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-rps-extending-00.txt

Abstract

This Internet Draft describes guidelines for extending the Routing Policy Specification Language (RPSL) [3, 4]. Our experiences with PRDB [2], RIPE-81 [6], and RIPE-181 [5] taught us that RPSL had to be extensible. These languages were not extensible and each transition to a new language turned out to be quite painful. As a result, extensibility was a primary design goal for RPSL. New routing protocols or new features to existing routing protocols can be easily handled using RPSL's dictionary class. New classes or new attributes to the existing classes can also be added.

Authors

Cengiz Alaettinoglu (cengiz@isi.edu)
David Kessens (david.kessens@nokia.com)

(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)