Re: [Idr] WG adoption of draft-heitz-idr-large-community; one week to comment on early code point allocation

[Julian Seifert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Job Snijders wrote:
> I have some questions for the working group:
>
> 1) Is the BNF in section 3 helpful or should it be removed for
>   document compactness?

It's a very short description that helps in understanding the representation
format. So I think it adds more clarity than complexity/length.

> 2) Does the section 3 'textual representation' wording allow sufficient
 >  flexibility to accomodate BIRD- or JunOS-style syntax?

As far as I understand the wording, the intent is to have everybody implement 
the 'part:part:part' representation as textual representation and _in addition_ allow vendors to
use their specific own representation. (Which might or might not be the default
for their product)

> 3) Should values in the range "65535:0:0 - 65535:4294967295:4294967295" be
>  reserved to accomodate any future well known communities? 65535 is
>  used in RFC1997 so i see merit in continuing to use that number.

I think there should be a reserved range but specific values/communities should
be defined in a separate document.

> 4) is it sufficiently clear how to encode multiple Large BGP Communities?
>  We all "know" what is meant because of rfc1997, but is the text actually
>  documenting this good enough?

To keep it short - for me it is clear and well documented.

> Thanks!

thank you as well :)

kind regards,

  Julian