> By enriching the RPSL dictionary and having a “geofeed” RPSL attribute > (which by the way should not be mandatory) will be easier for someone > to extend his parser to use that field without overloading the parser > with many “if” and regex expressions. Plus the upcoming RFC specifies > A that "The format MUST be as in this example,“ so a verification needs to be > applied later on.
I second this. > Of course it’s weird to talk about enriching RPSL on 2020 but putting > this apart, I believe it’s more correct to implement it in this way. If nobody ever adapts RPSL to the new requirements, RPSL is dead. So the question is: Should we throw away the RRDB in favour of something else, or do we extend RPSL in the way it was designed?
