Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:19:53AM -0700, Benoit Claise: > Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-07: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Introduction > > BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal opaque > information between Autonomous Systems (ASs). > > Not only "between": BGP communities might also be used inside an AS, as > you described in the "informational communities"
true; "and within" - would you pen that, job? > As mentioned by Jouni in his OPS-DIR review: > One minor nit I have relates to management & administration to the > large communities functions and description of their semantics. Are > those maintained somewhere? If there are existing repositories, > documentation, etc it would be nice to point out those. The document > now hints to NANOG and NLNOG.. They are not cataloged anywhere. I think that you are interpretting this draft to be more than an example of how one might use Large Communities, that it is standardizing the Local Data fields, which is not the case. These values are defined by and have significance to the ASN/Global Admin in the first field of the Large Comm. Does this address the comment? _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
