>>> 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 henk 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).
btw, do not read my comment as supporting (or not) henk's proposal. i just wanted to clarify it. my usual response to this kind of proposal is "send code." randy _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
