Re: [Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06.txt

[heasley <[e-mail]>]

Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:14:29AM +1100, Geoff Huston:
> 2. ----------------
> 
> "Network operators 
>  attach BGP communities to routes to identify intrinsic properties of
>  these routes."
> 
> I don't think community attributes are an intrinsic property of a route
> advertisement - they are more appropriately expressed as an attached attribute 
> that expresses some desired property.
> 
> how about:
>    
> "Network operators attach BGP communities to routes to associate
> particular properties with these routes."

is "particular" a useless word here?  I think the original text is fine, but
to consider your suggestion and follow the less-is-more mantra....

> 3. ----------------
> 
> "and may apply to an individual route or to a group of routes."
> 
> I am confused - surely the attributes in an Update BGP message apply to the
> collection of routes contained in the Update. It cannot be applied to a 
> single route when the update itself contains multiple routes. Why not
> use the text:
> 
> "and is applied to all routes contained in a BGP Update Message where
> the Communities Attribute is included."

You are correct about a BGP Update msg, obviously, but that text is not
talking about an update, rather the utility of a community, which may
apply to a single route or a group of routes - some of which may not be
in a given BGP Update msg.  Yes?
 
> 7. ----------------
> 
> 4.  Canonical Representation
> 
> I am confused here - this section used an example with TWO canonical
> representations:
> 
>    "For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0, or (64496, 111, 222)."
>    
>  
> Conventionally, it's better to use a single canonical representation, so the
> authors should pick either a colon-delimited list, or a bracketed comma+space
> separated object.

Are you sure; a separator is not defined in the text.


I agree with the other suggestions; the authors may or not.