Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-13: Discuss
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-13 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Job Snijders for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## DISCUSS (blocking) As noted in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/, a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be convinced otherwise. ### Section 3.3 There is no section 3.3 to list the types for Loc-RIB, the reader has to wait until section 4 to see this mentioned in the "summary", which is NOT a summary as it specifies the available value for Loc-RIB. I.e., add a section 3.3 listing the type numbers available for Loc-RIB. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Section 1 Mostly cosmetic but the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph has little value, the 2nd sentence seems to be enough. ### Section 3.1 It is a matter of taste of course, but I would have preferred to have the statistic types presented as "name (type = #, format) longer description" as starting with the type number is cumbersome for the reader. I also failed to understand the logic of sending only one (as opposed to the latest version of this I-D) type when two are available (e.g., for types 7 & 18), should there be some recommendations ? ### Section 7 Please use the exact URI of https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml#statistics-types ### Section 10.2 As indicated by the idnits tool, s/Informational References/*Informative* References/ _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
