Dear GROW,
I support the adoption of the document.
Some comments for the authors:
I suggest to reference RFC 9494 in TBD6 of section 2.1 to clearly describe the
meaning.
Regarding TBD5, the meaning of "marked as stale by any configuration" is
unclear to me. Please describe in more detail.
Would you consider to align the proposed counters to what is being defined in
section 2.1 of BMP path status
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-00#section-2.1
?
>From an operator perspective, this would make a lot of sense since depending
>on use case a statistical peering or per path view is needed.
Best wishes
Thomas
-Original Message-
From: GROW On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 6:19 PM
To: draft-pels-grow-yang-bgp-communit...@ietf.org; grow-cha...@ietf.org;
grow@ietf.org
Subject: [GROW] The GROW WG has placed draft-pels-grow-yang-bgp-communities in
state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
Be aware: This is an external email.
The GROW WG has placed draft-pels-grow-yang-bgp-communities in state Call For
Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Job Snijders)
The document was previously in state Candidate for WG Adoption
The document is available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pels-grow-yang-bgp-communities/
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
GROW mailing list
GROW@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
