Hi John, Inline:
> On 07 Feb 2019, at 21:06, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Perhaps a longer term plan, where we do also tackle the subject of TLV & >> Route Monitor message? > > As in Henk's earlier (and still not dead!) proposal? Yes. While i was and i still am a super-fan of the draft, there is what i’d define a small inconsistency that i would fix in that draft: the BGP UPDATE message is TLV’d itself, ie.: A BMP Adj-RIB-In route-monitoring message can look like: o generic bmp header, 6 bytes o per-peer bmp header, 42 bytes o tlv-header, type = BGP update message TLV o [ .. ] This is different from the other existing BMP messages where a TLV section follows the BGP message. >> Although not going in the ideal direction, for shorter-term I was thinking >> about somewhat a mix of the two solutions you propose, to work as a Charon: >> use a new reason code (or perhaps two, one for local terminated session, one >> for remotely terminated session) since, as you said in your follow-up email, >> it is the more conservative and would give the most hope against what has >> been already coded. And make this/these new reason code(s) carry "additional >> data [that] would be TLVized. It would obviously need to have a registry >> created for it” so not to make all too “expedient” and revolving around the >> specifics of VRF/Table Name and draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib. > > If I understand you correctly this seems fine to me. I guess the easiest way > to be fully clear would be to rev the draft, and then we can have a look at > the new text? Thanks for your feedback on this. I will then produce some text soon for everybody review. Paolo _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
