Hi Henk, > On 30 Apr 2018, at 17:01, Henk Smit <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we should alter the format of route-monitoring messages in BMP. > >> [ .. ] > > I'm not saying the drafts don't work. > I'm trying to look ahead. And I am convinced that route-monitoring > messages should be TLV based. And if we agree that we have to make that > change some day, I think we should change it asap.
I see your point and there are good ideas you raise and i think it will definitely be good conversation to have. My take is that what you propose is forward looking and broader scope than what the two currently active drafts actually touch. I would hence propose to not conflate things: the two drafts add much needed functionality to the BMP protocol to extend its coverage in terms of use-cases; conflating will effectively stall the current process and relegate operators needing visibility in the 5 vantage points identified (Adj-RIB-In pre- and post-policies, loc-rib and Adj-RIB-Out pre- and post-policies) to methods as bad as screen scraping for yet more years to come. If there is sufficient agreement on the current drafts, they should be let progress and a separate conversation (to which i’d be more than happy to contribute effort to) should start; if there is not sufficient agreement, we should iron divergences out and focus on wrapping the current drafting effort up. Paolo _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
