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

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 22:37:13 -0700

Murray Kucherawy 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Something for the IESG first.  In the shepherd writeup:

-- BEGIN --
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Draft-ietf-grow-bmp-local-rib is a Standards track document.
-- END --

This is increasingly common.  There are three questions being asked, but only
one is being answered, and not the most important one at that.  I'd really like
it if this started getting caught someplace in the review process before IESG
Evaluation.  Or, if we don't actually care about the answer anymore, we should
simplify or remove the question.

As for the document content, just one thing:

Martin pointed out a couple of acronyms he'd like to see expanded.  To that
list I add "BMP" and "RD".   More well-known, but still worth considering, are
"SPF" and "CSPF".  Up in the applications space, where the air is admittedly
thinner, "SPF" is a protocol for expressing email policy.