[Idr] Review of draft-ietf-large-community-06

[Mach Chen <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

I have review the latest version(06) of this document. The draft is well written and is basically ready for publication. I have some minor comments as bellows:

1. 

Section 2, the first sentence:
"This document creates the Large BGP Communities attribute as an..."

Although RFC1997 also uses "creates", I'd suggest to use "defines" here, it also aligns with the convention of most of the RFCs.


2.
Section 2, the last sentence:
"A receiving speaker SHOULD silently remove duplicate Large BGP
   Communities from a BGP UPDATE message."

IMHO, whether remove the duplicate communities from a BGP UPDATE message is not significant, since the life of the message is over once the message processed. The key point is that the receiving speaker should ignore the duplicate Large BGP Communities. 

How about:

"A receiving speaker SHOULD silently ignore the duplicate Large BGP
   Communities within a Large BGP Communities attribute. "

3.

In Section 5 says:
   "Operators SHOULD NOT use these Global Administrator
   values."

Later, in Section 6:
"The Large BGP Communities Global Administrator field may contain any
   value, and a Large BGP Communities attribute MUST NOT be considered
   malformed if the Global Administrator field contains an unallocated,
   unassigned or reserved ASN or is set to one of the reserved Large BGP
   Community values defined in Section 5."

The "SHOULD NOT", "may contain any value" and "MUST NOT" seems little bit confusion and self-contradiction. Since the first sentence is not a specification to the Large BGP Communities attribute, but just a recommendation to the Operators.

How about changing it as:

"It is recommended that operators do not use these Global Administrator values." 

Or using some other similar text.

Hope this comments helps!


Best regards,
Mach