Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-15: 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Updated ballot 20Nov2025] # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-15 # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-14.txt # Many thanks for the RTGDIR review from Bruno and the shepherd writeup from Job. # Thanks for great work resolving 3 DISCUSS items and all my COMMENTS with the v15 update. # DISCUSS # ======= #1# [Updated] BCP14 language is used in section 5. and i realized there may of been a miscommunication. The newly introduced section 5.1. discusses formal operational aspects of the BMP implementation, and it seems appropriate to have BCP14 language to formalize this. The section 5.2. discusses the operator operational aspects of the BMP usage and the BCP14 there seems inappropriate from formal protocol behavior. I understand that the intent of this language in 5.2. is to stress operator importance. Potentially add a clarification in the "1.1. Requirements Language" section clarifying that the BCP14 is used to stress importance for operators but are not required as formal implementation requirement. #2# [Updated] accurately gauge descriptions. Discussion on what is primary/backup path/route exactly means is unclear. The draft states for example: " Primary route: A BGP route to a prefix that is considered the best route by the BGP decision process [RFC4271]. A prefix can have more than one primary route. Backup route: A backup route is eligible for route selection, but it is not selected as the primary route and is also installed in the Loc-RIB. Backup routes are used for fast convergence in the event of failures. " There is unclarity between what is primary route, bgp best path selected and active route. The BGP process yields only a single BGP path, but multiple routes (-more as only the BGP single best path) can be yielded into actively forwarding traffic (ECMP or uECMP). The backup route, may be used for FRR, but that is not always true. Maybe slghtly soften the text. I align with Ketan's DISCUSS (his first discuss item) on accurate understanding for these terminology. #3# [Resolved] some gauges seem duplicates from prior existing gauges. Section 5.1 addresses this concern. #4# [resolved] section 3 is named "3. Statistics Definition" renamed to "3. RIB Monitoring Statistics" and a new section "3.1. Statistics Format" is introduced to resolve the discuss #5# [resolved] unclear "Value" description for gauges was resolved by the new section "3.1. Statistics Format" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # COMMENTS # ======== My comments were appropriatly addressed with the v15 draft Many thanks for this document, Kind Regards, Gunter Van de Velde RTG AD _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
