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

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

Dear Working Group,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 02:27:27PM -0400, John G. Scudder wrote:
> Authors, please remove the code point from the draft and resubmit as
> draft-ietf-idr-large-community.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idr-large-community-00 has been
posted!

Notable changes:

    o substantial rewording (thanks Heasley)
    o added BNF to replace the incorrect regex (thanks Peter van Dijk)
    o added security section (copy+pasted from RFC 4360)
    o added error handling (thanks Bush, Haas, Keyur)
    o remove squated IANA codepoint (squatting is a dutch tradition ;-))
    o updated currently known implementations (section 6)
    o updated the acknowledgements

I have some questions for the working group:

1) Is the BNF in section 3 helpful or should it be removed for
   document compactness?

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

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.

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?

Thanks!

The full diff can be viewed here: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-idr-large-community-00.txt

Kind regards,

Job