Authors, While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file.
1) <!-- [rfced] For clarity, may we replace "oversight" with "overlap"? Original: As the BGP Monitoring Protocol has been extended, this oversight has become problematic. Perhaps: As the BGP Monitoring Protocol has been extended, this overlap has become problematic. --> 2) <!-- [rfced] We find the "corresponding missing registry" somewhat confusing because it seems to refer to the registry being renamed as "missing". Please consider whether the suggested text would be more clear. Original: In this document, we create a distinct namespace for the Peer Up message to eliminate this overlap, and create the corresponding missing registry. Perhaps: In this document, we create distinct namespaces for the Peer Up and Initiation messages to eliminate the overlap. --> 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: Please review the questions below. a) It is unclear to us whether Section 3.1 refers to the updates to the "BMP Initiation Information TLVs" registry [1] or if it indicates that "Initiation" should to be updated to "Initiation Information" in the "BMP Message Types" registry [2], or both. Please review the IANA registries and let us know if updates are needed. [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml#initiation-information-tlvs [2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bmp-parameters/bmp-parameters.xhtml#message-types b) If updating the entry in "BMP Message Types" is intended, we suggest describing the action in the IANA Considerations section as well. Please provide text. c) The section title feels overloaded. May we change it as follows? Original: 3.1. Revision to Information TLV, Renamed as Initiation Information TLV Perhaps: 3.1. Revision to the Information TLV d) Somewhat related, Section 3.3 says: Original: The Peer Up Information TLV is used by the Peer Up message. Is the Peer Up Information TLV an IANA-registered value? We don't see "Peer Up Information" in the BMP registry. --> 4) <!-- [rfced] The text mentions Type 0 being revised, but the text that follows also includes definitions for Types 1 and 2. May we update the text as follows for clarity? Original: The definition of Type = 0 is revised to be: Perhaps: The definition of Type = 0 is revised as shown below. Type = 1 and Type = 2 are unchanged; they are provided for here for completeness. --> 5) <!-- [rfced] Because this text is supposed to replace text in RFC 9736, we have updated "defined below (Section 3.3)" to read "defined in Section 3.3 of RFC 9736." Rationale: if this text were incorporated into RFC 7854, "below (Section 3.3)" would be incorrect. Original: * Information: Information about the peer, using the Peer Up Information TLV format defined below (Section 3.3). --> 6) <!-- [rfced] Please confirm that the bit ruler appears as expected. Typically the numbers appear over the hyphens. Compare the alignment with the figure in Section 4.4 of RFC 7854 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7854.html#section-4.4>. Original (this doc): 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ --> 7) <!-- [rfced] Some author comments are present in the XML. Please confirm that no updates related to these comments are outstanding. Note that the comments will be deleted prior to publication. --> 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers. Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best practice. --> Thank you. RFC Editor On Feb 3, 2025, at 6:56 PM, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: *****IMPORTANT***** Updated 2025/02/03 RFC Author(s): -------------- Instructions for Completing AUTH48 Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/). You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing your approval. Planning your review --------------------- Please review the following aspects of your document: * RFC Editor questions Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as follows: <!-- [rfced] ... --> These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. * Changes submitted by coauthors Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. * Content Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) - contact information - references * Copyright notices and legends Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). * Semantic markup Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. * Formatted output Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. Submitting changes ------------------ To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties include: * your coauthors * rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion list: * More info: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc * The archive itself: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and its addition will be noted at the top of the message. You may submit your changes in one of two ways: An update to the provided XML file — OR — An explicit list of changes in this format Section # (or indicate Global) OLD: old text NEW: new text You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. Approving for publication -------------------------- To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. Files ----- The files are available here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9736.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9736.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9736.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9736.txt Diff file of the text: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9736-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9736-rfcdiff.html (side by side) Diff of the XML: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9736-xmldiff1.html Tracking progress ----------------- The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9736 Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation, RFC Editor -------------------------------------- RFC 9736 (draft-ietf-grow-bmp-peer-up-05) Title : BMP Peer Up Message Namespace Author(s) : J. Scudder, P. Lucente WG Chair(s) : Job Snijders, Chris Morrow Area Director(s) : Warren Kumari, Mahesh Jethanandani -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
