Hi John, [shared text] Ideally, i would like every BMP message type to have a (optional) TLV section, each with a own namespace. If the idea is shared, i’d look forward to see how to get there.
Given the above, I do support this. Paolo > On 15 Dec 2018, at 00:41, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > As I mentioned in the other thread, I think it was a mistake for Peer Up and > Initiation to share a namespace in RFC 7854. The fact that it's difficult to > get the text right in draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib demonstrates this. > > My suggestion is that we separate the namespaces. I've written and submitted > a short draft to do it, draft-scudder-grow-bmp-peer-up-00.txt [1]. It seemed > the most expedient way to describe the suggested approach. If the WG likes > the idea, we can adopt it, or if the WG wants to fix it a different way, > let's discuss. > > An alternate solution would be to embrace the Information TLV as a namespace > that's shared between multiple messages (the implication in > draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib that the Information TLV could be included in > Peer Down suggests that's what the authors imagine would happen). I don't > prefer this because it requires enumeration of exceptions ("foo Information > type only applies when carried in such-and-such BMP message type..."). > Independent namespaces ends up being a little wordier but less error-prone, > IMO. > > Regards, > > --John > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-scudder-grow-bmp-peer-up-00.txt > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
