Hi All,
As I mentioned in the other thread, I think it was a mistake for Peer Up and
Initiation to share a namespace in RFC 7854. The fact that it's difficult to
get the text right in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib demonstrates this.
My suggestion is that we separate the namespaces. I've written and submitted a
short draft to do it, draft-scudder-grow-bmp-peer-up-00.txt [1]. It seemed the
most expedient way to describe the suggested approach. If the WG likes the
idea, we can adopt it, or if the WG wants to fix it a different way, let's
discuss.
An alternate solution would be to embrace the Information TLV as a namespace
that's shared between multiple messages (the implication in
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib that the Information TLV could be included in
Peer Down suggests that's what the authors imagine would happen). I don't
prefer this because it requires enumeration of exceptions ("foo Information
type only applies when carried in such-and-such BMP message type...").
Independent namespaces ends up being a little wordier but less error-prone, IMO.
Regards,
--John
[1] https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-scudder-grow-bmp-peer-up-00.txt
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
