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

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

If we consider this as Option B:

On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 06:18:34PM +0100, Job Snijders wrote:
> Does removing the word "canonical" address the raised remark?
> 
> """
> 4.  Representation
> 
>    Large BGP Communities MUST be represented as three separate unsigned
>    integers in decimal notation in the following order: Global
>    Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2.  Numbers MUST NOT contain
>    leading zeros; a zero value MUST be represented with a single zero.
>    For example: 64496:4294967295:2, 64496:0:0, or (64496, 111, 222).
> """

Option C:

4.  Canonical Representation

   Large BGP Communities SHOULD be represented as three separate
   unsigned integers in decimal notation, separated by a colon, in the
   following order: Global Administrator, Local Data 1, Local Data 2.
   Numbers MUST NOT contain leading zeros; a zero value MUST be
   represented with a single zero. For example: 64496:4294967295:2
   or 64496:0:0.


Option D:

    remove the section and let the market figure it out.

Some might argue "this is a minute detail" - however I do think that the
proliferation of ways to notate extended communities have not really
helped the extended communities effort. this is a good chance and a good
place to shortcut some of that proces and provide guidance.

Option C is basically as watered down as possible. Settle on that and
move on?

Kind regards,

Job