Subject: [GROW] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-bmp-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 03:58:39 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-16: 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/

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

Considering that
1. BMP will simply transmit the PDU
2. The use cases is monitoring
3. The correlation between BMP and draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model is possible
(at least manually)
4. It's implemented today
I'll remove my DISCUSS

COMMENT:
- From the write-up:

-- The BMP protocol has been a GROW document for quite sometime.  The
-- length of time has allowed the document to have multiple
implementations
-- completed, along with incorporating working group feedback into the
spec
-- and polishing the document. 

Btw, don't forget, for future documents, the experimental RFC 6982
"Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section"

-  following nits need to be addressed in the document.

Miscellaneous warnings:
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The document seems to contain a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but
was
     first submitted on or after 10 November 2008.  The disclaimer is
usually
     necessary only for documents that revise or obsolete older RFCs, and
that
     take significant amounts of text from those RFCs.  If you can
contact all
     authors of the source material and they are willing to grant the
BCP78
     rights to the IETF Trust, you can and should remove the disclaimer.

     Otherwise, the disclaimer is needed and you can ignore this comment.

     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)