>> 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 my reading is correct, ... i do not think that is what hank is saying at all. he is not suggesting racical semantic change. he is suggesting more easily understood and processed syntax. this is the kind of change you can make in O(week). randy _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
