All, Thank you for your replies thus far.
Changwang - Thank you for your careful review and sending along the updates. We have incorporated these changes into the files for you to verify. Jinming, Yisong, and Mukul - We believe your intent was to approve the current version of the document (but wanted to confirm as your messages addressed a single “change”). We have marked your AUTH48 status as “Approved”; if you do have further changes to submit or did not intend to approve the document, please let us know. Otherwise, please know that your approvals will stand even if further changes are submitted by a coauthor unless we hear objection at that time. Assuming the other authors approve, once we have approval from Changwang, we will contact IANA with any necessary updates to the registry to match the document prior to moving this document forward to publication. The files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.xml The diff files have been posted here (please refresh): https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-diff.html (Comprehensive) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-rfcdiff.html (same as above but side by side) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only) https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9972 Thank you. Megan Ferguson RFC Production Center > On May 8, 2026, at 5:27 AM, linchangwang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Megan, all, > > I approve the change. > > Few comments on the edited version: > > 1.The abbreviation ASN should be spelled out in full upon its first > occurrence. > > In "3.2. Adj-RIB-In RIB Monitoring Statistics Definition": > > OLD： > Type = 35: (64-bit Gauge) > Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy > Adj-RIB-In invalidated after verifying the route origin ASN > through the Route Origin Authorization (ROA) of the Resource > Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6811]. This is the total > number of routes invalidated due to a mismatch of origin > Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) and a mismatch of prefix length. > NEW: > Type = 35: (64-bit Gauge) > Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy > Adj-RIB-In invalidated after verifying the route origin Autonomous > System Number (ASN) > through the Route Origin Authorization (ROA) of the Resource > Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) [RFC6811]. This is the total > number of routes invalidated due to a mismatch of origin > ASNs and a mismatch of prefix length. > > 2. Does the following one seem not to have been revised? > > 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. >> --> >> 【Changwang] Change it to be consistent with the definition of Section 8. > > OLD: > Type = 36: (64-bit Gauge) > Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy > Adj-RIB-In validated by verifying the route origin ASN through the > ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811]. > > NEW: > Type = 36: (64-bit Gauge) > Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy > Adj-RIB-In validated after verifying the route origin ASN through > the ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811]. > > OLD: > Type = 41: (64-bit Gauge) > Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy > Adj-RIB-Out invalidated through the ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811]. > This is the total number of routes invalidated due to a mismatch > of origin ASNs and a mismatch of prefix lengths. > > NEW: > Type = 41: (64-bit Gauge) > Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy > Adj-RIB-Out invalidated after verifying the route origin ASN > through the ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811]. This is the total number > of routes invalidated due to a mismatch of origin ASNs and a > mismatch of prefix lengths. > > OLD: > Type = 42: (64-bit Gauge) > Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy > Adj-RIB-Out validated by verifying the route origin ASN through > the ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811]. > NEW: > Type = 42: (64-bit Gauge) > Current number of routes in the per-AFI/SAFI post-policy > Adj-RIB-Out validated after verifying the route origin ASN through > the ROA of the RPKI [RFC6811]. > > > > Thanks, > Changwang > > > 发件人: Megan Ferguson <[email protected]> > 发送时间: 2026年5月8日 0:45 > 收件人: linchangwang (RD) <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Srivastava, Mukul > <[email protected]> > 主题: Re: [AD] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9972 <draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17> > for your review > > > > All, > > *AD - please review and approve the removal of a BCP 14 keyword as follows: > >>> >>> 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. >>> --> >>> >>> 【Changwang] I agree with the above modifications. > > > Changwang - Thank you for your reply and guidance. > > We have updated the files as requested and reposted them. We believe all of > our initial queries have been resolved and have marked them as such on the > this document’s AUTH48 status page (see link below). > > Please review the files carefully as we do not make changes once published as > an RFC. > > We will await approvals of the document in its current form from each of the > parties listed at the AUTH48 status page prior to moving the document forward > in the publication process. > > The files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.txt > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972.xml > > The diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-diff.html (Comprehensive) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-rfcdiff.html (same as above but > side by side) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes > only) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9972-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > The AUTH48 status page for this document is available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9972 > > Thank you. > > Megan Ferguson > RFC Production Center > > >> On May 7, 2026, at 9:48 AM, Srivastava, Mukul >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I just want to support the feedback provided by Changing. >> I am in sync with the changes suggest. >> >> Thanks >> Mukul >> >> From: linchangwang (RD) <[email protected]> >> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2026 at 11:32 AM >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Srivastava, >> Mukul <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9972 >> <draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17> for your review >> >> Hi, >> >> Thank you for your valuable feedback. >> For a detailed response, please see the reply below. >> >> Thanks, >> Changwang >> >> -----邮件原件----- >> 发件人: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> 发送时间: 2026年5月6日 20:15 >> 收件人: [email protected]; [email protected]; linchangwang >> (RD) <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> 主题: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9972 <draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats-17> >> for your review >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> [Changwang] Maintain consistency. Revise as follows: >> OLD: >> Post-policy Adj-RIB-In: As defined in Section 2 of [RFC7854]. >> >> NEW: >> Post-policy Adj-RIB-In: As defined in Section 2 of [RFC7854]: >> >> | The result of applying inbound policy to an Adj-RIB-In, but >> | prior to the application of route selection to form the Loc- >> | RIB. >> >> OLD: >> Pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in Section 3 of [RFC8671]. >> >> Post-policy Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in Section 3 of [RFC8671]. >> >> NEW: >> Pre-policy Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in Section 3 of [RFC8671]: >> >> | The result before applying the outbound policy to an Adj-RIB- >> | Out. This normally would match what is in the local RIB. >> >> Post-policy Adj-RIB-Out: As defined in Section 3 of [RFC8671]: >> >> | The result of applying outbound policy to an Adj-RIB-Out. This >> | MUST convey to the BMP receiver what is actually transmitted to >> | the peer. >> >> OLD: >> Loc-RIB: As defined in Section 1.1 of [RFC4271]: >> >> | The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been selected by the >> | local BGP speaker's Decision Process." Note that the Loc-RIB >> | state as monitored through BMP might also contain routes >> | imported from other routing protocols such as an IGP or local >> | static routes. >> NEW: >> Loc-RIB: As defined in Section 1.1 of [RFC4271]: >> >> | The Loc-RIB contains the routes that have been selected by the >> | local BGP speaker's Decision Process. >> >> Note that the Loc-RIB state as monitored through BMP might also >> contain routes imported from other routing protocols such as an >> IGP or local static routes. >> >> OLD: >> Route: As defined in Section 1.1 of [RFC4271]. >> NEW: >> Route: As defined in Section 1.1 of [RFC4271]: >> >> | A unit of information that pairs a set of destinations with the >> | attributes of a path to those destinations. >> >> >> 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. >> >> --> >> [Changwang] Here it simply means that Collector is equivalent to Monitoring >> Station, without the need for a Monitoring Station to appear. No >> modifications are required. >> >> >> 2) <!--[rfced] Do uses of "per-" apply to both AFI and SAFI? Note that >> more instances occur throughout the document. >> 【Changwang] Yes, as described in RFC7854/RFC9069, it should be Per-AFI/SAFI. >> >> >> 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]). >> >> --> >> 【Changwang] If directly abbreviated, it is recommended to change it to the >> following: >> NEW: >> ...Global Statistics and Per-AFI/SAFI [see RFC4760] Statistics. >> >> >> 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. >> >> 【Changwang] I agree with the above modifications. >> >> 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. >> --> >> >> 【Changwang] Please modify as follows: >> OLD: >> The Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics apply only to the AFI/SAFIs that a BGP speaker >> supports and negotiates with its peer. >> >> NEW: >> The Per-AFI/SAFI Statistics apply only to the AFI/SAFI that a BGP speaker >> supports and negotiates with its peer. >> >> >> 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. >> --> >> >> 【Changwang] I agree with the above modifications. >> >> >> 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... >> >> --> >> 【Changwang] I agree with the above modifications. >> >> 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. >> --> >> 【Changwang] Change it to be consistent with the definition of Section 8. >> >> >> 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. >> --> >> >> 【Changwang] I agree with the above modifications. >> >> 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... >> --> >> 【Changwang] I agree with the above modifications. >> >> 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. >> >> --> >> [Changwang] "sample..., buffer..., or temporarily suspend..." >> NEW: >> To avoid adversely impacting the restart process, a BMP statistics producer >> MAY choose to sample this value at a lower frequency, buffer the 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. >> [Changwang] Agreed. >> >> 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. >> >> --> >> [Changwang] Agreed. >> >> >> 11) <!-- [rfced] Would you like the references to be alphabetized or left >> in their current order? >> --> >> [Changwang] alphabetized. >> >> >> 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) [Changwang] Stat Type. >> >> BMP Statistics Report Message vs. BMP statistics message [Changwang] >> BMP Statistics Report message. >> >> Statistic vs. statistic (when used by itself) [Changwang] statistic. >> >> Gauge vs. gauge >> [Changwang] Gauge. >> >> Type vs. type (e.g., Type 27 vs. type 27) [Changwang] Type 27. >> >> statistic type vs. statistics types (various casing) - singular or plural? >> --> >> [Changwang] statistics types. >> >> >> 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)? >> >> --> >> [Changwang] Agreed, please make the changes uniformly. >> >> 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. >> --> >> [Changwang] Reviewed, no modifications needed. >> >> >> 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-4Q9l2USxI >> Ae6P8O4Zc >> >> * 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 >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> 本邮件及其附件含有新华三集团的保密信息，仅限于发送给上面地址中列出的个人或群组。 >> 禁止任何其他人以任何形式使用（包括但不限于全部或部分地泄露、复制、或散发）本邮件中的信息。 >> 如果您错收了本邮件，请您立即电话或邮件通知发件人并删除本邮件！ >> This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from New >> H3C, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed >> above. >> Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not >> limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by >> persons other than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. >> If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or >> email immediately and delete it! > -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
