Hi Jeff, Please see inline with tag [SD]
Thanks, Saumya. From: Jeffrey Haas <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, 5 August 2025 at 10:43 PM To: Dikshit, Saumya <[email protected]> Cc: msri <[email protected]>, linchangwang <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [GROW] Query on draft-ietf-grow-bmp-bgp-rib-stats Saumya, > On Aug 5, 2025, at 1:03 PM, Dikshit, Saumya <[email protected]> wrote: > > I understand it can be noisy to club it with this one, but it could be > helpful (and please provide your suggestion on this) in the longer run: > • Call out in this draft about what we are not covering in this one. The current draft should be crisp about what each of the fields mean and not spend energy on documenting the vast number of things it doesn't do. :-) [SD] it’s about calling out per AFI/SAFI specific counters, so that we can relate this document to any effort threading out in that area, and this document can be the mother ship of all others. > • Start individual drafts per AFI/SAFI (or just AFIs or subset of > AFI/SAFI’s clubbed together) capturing its uniqueness. it will ensure that > double clicking the “post-policy” can be delegated to each of these drafts. In circumstances where the statistics vary differently by address family, separate drafts may make sense. As an example, evpn specific statistics might be better served in an evpn specific draft. [SD] That’s one of the threading outs I am referring to, and try to put pieces together. But as you mentioned it will be great to have a consensus on that. It might get into “water run dry” situation 😊 because of not enough traction However, where there's commonality of function, there's two easy ways to go about such things: 1. The common things are kept in their own draft. 2. The common things get replicated across drafts, and it's a matter of audit work for the WG to ensure that they're dealt with consistently. [SD] My 2 cents on this. And this shall pan out organically as part of the consensus or otherwise. 2 happens because sometimes it's better to have a document cover the full set of things it is describing, especially when discussing how statistics may cross-correlate with each other. Enforcing consistency in naming and statistics gathering behavior is trickier when something similar is spread across documents. And that said, nothing stops an effort from beginning one way and eventually heading to RFC the other. We have to start discussion somewhere. [SD] How should we start the discussions. This “mother ship” draft getting into WG should be the right place/time to do that :D -- Jeff
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
