Last Call Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-06-25
Requested 2019-06-11
Authors Tim Evens, Serpil Bayraktar, Paolo Lucente, Kevin Mi, Shunwan Zhuang
Draft last updated 2019-06-14
Completed reviews Rtgdir Last Call review of -05 by Acee Lindem (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05-genart-lc-dunbar-2019-06-14
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2019-06-14


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-??
Reviewer: Linda Dunbar
Review Date: 2019-06-14
IETF LC End Date: 2019-06-25
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat


The draft updates the BGP Monitoring Protocol BMP by adding access to the Adj-RIB-Out RIBs. There are some unclear areas that need authors to clarify. 

Major issues:

Minor issues:

Section 1 last paragraph: 
It is not clear if BMP sender send to multiple BMP receivers  or just  to one "BMP receiver". The first part of the sentence says "..send to a BMP receivers", the second part says ".. advertise to BGP peers, .."

Suggest to make it consistent, such as sending  to multiple, or just one.   ".. to send to BMP receivers what it advertises.."

Does a BMP sender also send out Adj-RIB-In? it is not clear to. 

Section 6 first sentence: just curious which BMP messages are NOT applicable to Adj-RIB-In or Adj-RIB-out?   If it is specified in other documents, please add a reference. 

Nits/editorial comments:

Thank you. 

Linda Dunbar