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 Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-06-25
Requested 2019-06-12
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Tim Evens, Serpil Bayraktar, Paolo Lucente, Kevin Mi, Shunwan Zhuang
Draft last updated 2019-06-20
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 Acee Lindem
State Completed
Review review-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05-rtgdir-lc-lindem-2019-06-20
Posted at
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 07)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2019-06-20



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-grow-bmp-adj-rib-out-05.txt
Reviewer: Acee Lindem
Review Date: June 20, 2018
IETF LC End Date: Not started yet.
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary: The document extends BGP Monitoring Protocol to support per-peer Pre-Policy and Post-Policy Adj-RIB-Out monitoring similar to RFC 7854 support of Adj-RIB-In. The document is ready for publication.

Comments: A well-written clear and concise document.

Major Issues: N/A

Minor Issues:
    Use updated boilerplate text for “Reserved Words”.

    You will be undoubtedly asked to explain why the Adj-RIB-Out support doesn’t add any additional security considerations. However, I’ll leave that the security reviewers so that they can fulfill their divine mandate of securing the Internet.

Nits: See attached diff including Peer Up and Peer Down capitalization consistent with RFC 7854.