Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this document. It seems like a useful addition to me. A couple of non blocking comments, that you can either decide to act on, or ignore, as you wish: (1) I was slightly confused by the first sentence in the introduction: This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering sessions. Due to the use of the word "remote" I had interpreted this as a router in the network monitoring the BGP Loc-RIB state of another BGP peer in the network. Rather than a management agent using BMP to monitor a the Loc-RIB or a BGP instance. Hence, please consider removing the word "remote", or otherwise reword this sentence. (2) I wasn't sure whether section 1.1 was useful in the main part of the document. It seems to describe an alternative approach that it tricky to get right and doesn't work as well. I would have probably have put all of section 1.1 into an appendix and then reference/summarize it in the introduction to justify why exporting the Loc-RIB table directly is helpful. Regards, Rob _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
