Dear Meral,
A new version of the draft has been published to address your comments.
Please review the diff here:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-01
On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:35:40AM +0000, Meral Shirazipour wrote:
> Summary:
> This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some
> comments.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
> -[Page 2]:
> "This has led to deployment problems for new technologies such as
> Large BGP Communities [I-D.ietf-idr-large-community]."
>
> Not sure if draft-ietf-idr-large-community explains the issues caused
> by the use of these attribute values ? If yes it would be good to
> point to that section. If not it would be good to add short summary
> here.
A short summary has been added.
> Nits/editorial comments:
> -[Page 2], Section 4 please refer to latest version of
> [I-D.ietf-idr-large-community].
I mistakenly linked to -08 (while -11 is the latest version), this will
be corrected before publication.
> -[Page 2]:
> "The squatting of values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242 and 243 has been
> confirmed by the involved vendors or through source code review."
>
> A bit confusing, somehow it seems 30 is already deprecated as per:
> https://www.ietf.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xml
> with reference to [draft-ietf-idr-large-community].
> The switch between used of 30 to use of 32 happened between v04 and
> v05 of [draft-ietf-idr-large-community]?
> Perhaps https://www.ietf.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xml
> should be updated to point to this draft instead?
Yes, I expect IANA to remove the reference to Large Communities behind
30 (because Large no longer has anything to do with value 30, and indeed
we want to prevent confusion), and reference this document, if approved
for publication.
Kind regards,
Job
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
