Hoi Martin, Thank you again for the help, I will fix the small grammar mistake.
If there are no further objections and the community agrees to adopt draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms, I will contact asap the authors of RFC7948 and work with them to update section 4.6.1 accordingly. I believe is quite useful to do that as well. Kind Regards Stavros From: Martin Pels <[email protected]> Date: Friday, 19 April 2024 at 15:12 To: Stavros Konstantaras <[email protected]>, Jeff Haas <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [GROW] WGADOPTION - draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms - ENDS 04/08/2024 - Apr 8th 2024 Hi Stavros, On 18/04/2024 11:32, Stavros Konstantaras wrote: > Hi Martin, Jeff and colleagues. > > After some internal discussion, we have submitted the -02 version of the > draft, you can find it available here: > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms&data=05%7C02%7Cstavros.konstantaras%40ams-ix.net%7C3233e1941fae4f7c2a5e08dc60726476%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638491291652345296%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=8kimceqc%2BbukN0oO2rxLSL1bADZeqhZX%2B7159jMgYO4%3D&reserved=0<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms> > <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms&data=05%7C02%7Cstavros.konstantaras%40ams-ix.net%7C3233e1941fae4f7c2a5e08dc60726476%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638491291652360248%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=dMDaT6GyiJPpEWuO2p7AikydeHkhdONvakJlcg%2F8CUk%3D&reserved=0<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-spaghetti-grow-bcp-ext-comms>> > > In short we adopted your recommedations and we do believe that IXP Route > Servers should not scrub completely the BGP Extendend communities as > this might be a useful feature for few peers signaling each-other. I found one grammar nit: "Allow the rest of the BGP Extended Communities transit transparently through the Route Servers." should be "Allow the rest of the BGP Extended Communities to transit transparently through the Route Servers." > However, we do believe that BGP Extendend communities related to L3VPNs > (route targets) should not be leaked to the Route Servers and they don’t > have valid place in Multilateral Peering. This is depicted in section ** > > 4. > > Please have a reading and let us know what do you believe after these > modifications. Looks acceptable to me. What are your thoughts on having the document update RFC7948, section 4.6.1? Kind regards, Martin
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
