Subject: [GROW] Martin Vigoureux's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Vigoureux via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 03:10:51 -0700

Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

Somehow related to Benjamin's comment, I'm not sure how to interpret this
change:

   The following fields in the Per-Peer Header are redefined:

   o  Peer Address: The remote IP address associated with the TCP
      session over which the encapsulated PDU is sent.

   o  Peer AS: The Autonomous System number of the peer from which the
      encapsulated PDU was sent.

   o  Peer BGP ID: The BGP Identifier of the peer from which the
      encapsulated PDU was sent.

In which context are these new definitions valid? i.e., for O=1 only? Whatever
the answer I think it wouldn't hurt to make that clear.

Also, I read that a requirement has changed:
in rfc7854
     *  The remaining bits are reserved for future use.  They MUST be
         transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.
in your draft
   The existing flags are defined in section 4.2 [RFC7854] and the
   remaining bits are reserved for future use.  They SHOULD be
   transmitted as 0 and their values MUST be ignored on receipt.

Is that intentional?

Finally:
   o  Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out: The result of applying outbound policy to
      an Adj-RIB-Out. This MUST be what is actually sent to the peer.
Maybe I'm reading incorrectly the last sentence but I'm under the impression
that setting such requirement is outside the scope of this document. Shouldn't
it rather say: "This is what is actually sent to the peer."