Subject: [GROW] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10: (with COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 04:34:27 -0700

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib-10: 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-local-rib/

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

Thanks for this document.  It seems like a useful addition to me.

A couple of non blocking comments, that you can either decide to act on, or
ignore, as you wish:

(1) I was slightly confused by the first sentence in the introduction:

   This document defines a mechanism to monitor the BGP Loc-RIB state of
   remote BGP instances without the need to establish BGP peering
   sessions.

Due to the use of the word "remote" I had interpreted this as a router in the
network monitoring the BGP Loc-RIB state of another BGP peer in the network. 
Rather than a management agent using BMP to monitor a the Loc-RIB or a BGP
instance.  Hence, please consider removing the word "remote", or otherwise
reword this sentence.

(2) I wasn't sure whether section 1.1 was useful in the main part of the
document.  It seems to describe an alternative approach that it tricky to get
right and doesn't work as well.  I would have probably have put all of section
1.1 into an appendix and then reference/summarize it in the introduction to
justify why exporting the Loc-RIB table directly is helpful.

Regards,
Rob