Linda, thanks for your review. Tim, thanks for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot. Alissa > On Jun 20, 2019, at 12:55 PM, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Tim, > > Thank you very much for the changes. > Your newly proposed texts are very clear. > > Linda > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gen-art <gen-art-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Tim Evens (tievens) > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 4:22 PM > To: Linda Dunbar <Linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxx>; gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: grow@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05 > > Hi Linda, > > Thank you so much for your review and comments. Please see response inline marked [tievens]. > > > On 6/14/19, 1:44 PM, "Linda Dunbar via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Summary: > > The draft updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol BMP by adding access to the > Adj-RIB-Out RIBs. There are some unclear areas that need authors to clarify. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Section 1 last paragraph: > It is not clear if BMP sender send to multiple BMP receivers or just to one > "BMP receiver". The first part of the sentence says "..send to a BMP > receivers", the second part says ".. advertise to BGP peers, .." > > Suggest to make it consistent, such as sending to multiple, or just one. ".. > to send to BMP receivers what it advertises.." > > [tievens] There are one or more receivers for each sender. The implementation > defines how many receivers it can send to. I've updated it to: > > "Adding Adj-RIB-Out provides the ability for a BMP sender to send to > BMP receivers what it advertises to BGP peers, which can be used for > outbound policy validation and to monitor RIBs that were advertised." > > [Linda] Yes, your new text is much more clear. > > Does a BMP sender also send out Adj-RIB-In? it is not clear to. > > [tievens] Yes, RFC7854 defines Adj-RIB-In only. How about the below? > > "BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) RFC 7854 [RFC7854] only defines Adj- > RIB-In being sent to BMP receivers. This document updates section > 4.2 [RFC7854] per-peer header by adding a new flag to distinguish > Adj-RIB-In verses Adj-RIB-Out. BMP senders use the new flag to send > either Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out." > > [Linda] Thank you for the change. It is very clear now (sorry that I didn't devote time to read the RFC7854). > > Section 6 first sentence: just curious which BMP messages are NOT applicable to > Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-out? If it is specified in other documents, please add > a reference. > > [tievens] How about the below update to clarify some. I didn’t want to create a list > of them because it could be different in updated/new drafts. > > "Many BMP messages have a per-peer header but some are not applicable > to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-Out monitoring, such as peer up and down > notficiations." > > [Linda] thanks. It is very clear now. > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Thank you. > > Linda Dunbar > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgen-art&data=02%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C71348478589849f9d41b08d6f4fc2b04%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C636965761234078303&sdata=gWj2o%2BUm8nRnYFVqIazO0bKQehhkjQZPsZpP7hXqVlU%3D&reserved=0 > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
