Re: [Idr] WG LC for draft-ietf-idr-extcomm-iana-00.txt

[Eric Rosen <[e-mail]>]

> I believe it is better to add a reference to each registry to point out
> Where the attributed is defined and how to use this attribute.

These references should appear on the IANA web page (where the line length
is not restricted to 72 characters), but we didn't think it necessary to
include them in the draft

> I believe IPv6-address-Specific Extended Community should use the similar
> Syntax as the other registries, i.e., using 1st octet to indicate type and
> 2nd Octet to indicate subtype.

To me, there's not much value in having separate Sub-Type registries for the
IPv6-address-specific extended communities, as an IPv6-address-specific
extended community always begins with two octets of registered codepoint.
This is much simpler than the case of the "ordinary" extended communities,
which may begin with either octet or two octets of registered codepoint.  So
I think what we have proposed is satisfactory.  Of course, your proposal
would work also.

(What makes it complicated to administer the codepoints for the  "ordinary"
extended communities is that fact that the sub-type field isn't necessarily
present; sometimes the second octet is part of the value field.  The
IPv6-address-specific extended community doesn't have this issue.)