Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the
following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions about the Terminology
section:
a) We notice that some entries in the Terminology section include
quotes from their defining documents while others do not. Should this
be made uniform?
b) We do not see any uses of Monitoring Station in this document.
Please review if updates to the following text should be made.
Original:
The terms "Producer" and "Collector" are equivalent to "Monitored
Router" and "Monitoring Station", respectively.
-->
2) <!--[rfced] Do uses of "per-" apply to both AFI and SAFI? Note that
more instances occur throughout the document.
Note also that, for this instance, as AFI and SAFI are marked as well-known
abbreviations, it may actually be easier for the reader if the expansions were
removed:
Original:
...Global Statistics and Per-Address Family Identifier
(AFI)/Subsequent Address Family Identifier (SAFI) [RFC4760]
Statistics.
Perhaps:
...Global Statistics and Statistics per-AFI or per-SAFI (see [RFC4760]).
-->
3) <!--[rfced] Is the switch between singular and plural in these
sentences intentional?
a) a statistic vs. statistics
Original:
Both a Global Statistic and its corresponding Per-AFI/ SAFI Statistics
can be reported simultaneously.
Perhaps:
Both Global Statistics and and their corresponding Per-AFI/ SAFI
Statistics can be reported simultaneously.
b) AFI/SAFIs
Original:
The Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics apply only to the AFI/SAFIs that a BGP
speaker supports and negotiates with its peer.
Perhaps:
The Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics apply only to the AFIs/SAFIs that a BGP
speaker supports and negotiates with its peer.
Note: even when not preceded by "Per", it may be beneficial to clarify
the use of the slash character. Are these either/or relationships or and
relationships? If it has a special meaning, it may be good to define
AFI/SAFI in the Terminology section.
-->
4) <!--[rfced] We plan to reformat the following text but have waited as
there were so many uses, we felt it would clutter the diff file.
Original:
...formatted as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, and a 64-bit Gauge.
Perhaps:
...formatted as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a 64-bit Gauge.
Note that we will update the following similar use (many instances
exist) to appear as above unless we hear objection.
Original:
The value is structured as: 2-byte AFI, 1-byte SAFI, followed by a
64-bit Gauge.
Perhaps:
The value is structured as a 2-byte AFI, a 1-byte SAFI, and a 64-bit
Gauge.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] Should the following update be made?
Original:
The stats type 0 is a 32-counter which is a monotonically increasing
number...
Perhaps:
Stats type 0 is a 32-bit counter that is a monotonically increasing
number...
-->
6) <!--[rfced] We see both "invalidated through the ROA of RPKI" for
Types 35, 36, 41, and 42 in Section 3.2 and "invalidated after
verifying route origin AS number through the ROA of RPKI" for the
same types in Section 8. Please let us know if/how these should
be made uniform.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] Is there any issue with using both RECOMMENDED and SHOULD
in the same sentence?
Original:
...it is RECOMMENDED that BMP producers capable of generating both
(Types 7 and 18) or (Types 9 and 19) BMP statistics SHOULD transmit
both corresponding types simultaneously.
Perhaps:
...it is RECOMMENDED that BMP producers capable of generating both
(Types 7 and 18) and (Types 9 and 19) BMP statistics transmit both
corresponding types simultaneously.
-->
8) <!--[rfced] Please rephrase "absent policy otherwise" in the
following:
Original:
For backward compatibility, and absent policy otherwise...
Perhaps:
For backward compatibility, and absent any other policy...
-->
9) <!--[rfced] This list is not of a parallel structure. How may we
update?
Original:
To avoid adversely impacting the restart process, a BMP statistics
producer MAY choose to sample this value at a lower frequency, buffer
updates, or temporarily suspend reporting for this type during the
most critical phases of a switchover.
Perhaps:
To avoid adversely impacting the restart process, a BMP statistics
producer MAY choose to sample this value at a lower frequency, sample
it at buffer updates, or temporarily suspend reporting for this type
during the most critical phases of a switchover.
-->
10) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions/comments related to the
IANA Considerations section:
a) We will communicate any updates to the descriptions of the Stat
types to IANA upon the completion of AUTH48.
b) We will update the format of the list to instead appear as a table.
We have kept as is for now in order to facilitate diff review. Please
let us know any objections.
-->
11) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left
in their current order?
-->
12) <!--[rfced] We note that the following terms may be used inconsistently
throughout the document. Please review these terms and let us know if/how they
may be made consistent.
Stat Type vs. stat type vs. stats type (note RFC 7854 does not use
stats type)
BMP Statistics Report Message vs. BMP statistics message
Statistic vs. statistic (when used by itself)
Gauge vs. gauge
Type vs. type (e.g., Type 27 vs. type 27)
statistic type vs. statistics types (various casing) - singular or
plural?
-->
13) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to abbreviation use
throughout the document:
a) We see several instances of AS number. May we make these ASN
instead (for Autonomous System Number)?
-->
14) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the
online Style Guide
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this
nature typically result in more precise language, which is
helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this
should still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
Thank you.
Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center
*****IMPORTANT*****
Updated 2026/05/06
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* [email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9972
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC9972 (draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17)
Title : Advanced BGP Monitoring Protocol (BMP) Statistics Types
Author(s) : M. Srivastava, Ed., Y. Liu, C. Lin, Ed., J. Li
WG Chair(s) : Paolo Lucente, Job Snijders
Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
