[Idr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-ext-opt-param-11: 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-idr-ext-opt-param/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It sounds like it is really a
useful extension to BGP-4.

Having written that, I must admit that I failed to understand the mechanism at
first reading. It took me a while to cross reference this doc + IANA registry +
RFC 4271 (but, for sure, I am not a BGP SW engineer!).

I suggest to mention, in section 2, that the Code Capability IANA registry for
255 was reserved per RFC 8810 (so not causing interoperation) as well as using
the actual values 255 in figure 1 and finally add the figure 4.2 from RFC 4271
to be crystal clear for the reader.

Should the "new speaker" behavior be specified when an "old speaker" close the
connection ? I.e., retry if possible without using this specification ?

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric