Hi Jeff, On 1 Nov 2019, at 19:04, Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The one addition I'd suggest for the document is that information about peer-up/down messages is needed to usefully decode some information or context about the other BMP messages. You'll want a bit of operational procedure in your text about "please save this bit of state in each file”. Or we can “save this bit of state” in the BMP message itself :-) I indeed refer to make this MRT draft depend on BMP v4 ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-tlv/ ) since, for example, we define there a handful TLVs for Stateless Parsing (it was more done to PoC the mechanism but indeed they would result entirely useful here). Should this be an approach we'd like to consider, of course it opens the door to further considerations, one for all: shall these TLVs be made mandatory? Paolo
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
