Re: [Idr] draft-rosen-idr-extcomm-iana-00.txt

[Jon Mitchell <[e-mail]>]

On 12/06/13 07:33 -0700, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> Sue and John,
> 
> The authors of draft-rosen-idr-extcomm-iana-00.txt would like
> the IDR WG to accept this draft as an IDR WG document.
> 

Support adoption, comments below can be sorted out after acceptance...

A few comments or questions - not an implementor so possibly off base
on a few of these:

Section 3 - nit - it's not totally clear that RFC5701 defines the two
high order octets as "Type Field".  It certainly implies it, but calls
it by various other names throughout.

Section 4 - Can I suggest "Standards Action" for new Types, or at
least something more specific than request to IANA.

Section 5.1.1 - first thought it was mistake that simpson draft had
full type considering all other flowspec actions are sub-type of
experimental, but guess this is a point to take up with those authors
(although draft expired).  Might be easier if you specify in
paranthesis no sub-types for 0x04, 0x05, 0x08.  0x06 could use
standard wording of "Sub-types are defined in..."

Section 5.2 - it would be easier to understand I think if you split
transitive and non-transitive sub-types into seperate sub-sections.

Section 5.2.1 - this doesn't mention if it's transitive /
non-transitive, mute if you follow advice above.  Also - would it make
sense to order these sub-sections by type order?

Section 5.2.2 - Section header says Transitive, Registry Name says
Non-Transitive?

Section 5.2.10 - this section nor anywhere else in document talks
about Traffic Actions (for flow spec) which is currently referenced in
BGP Extended Communities registry - will it be removed from the
registry or should 0x07 just have a comment/reference to it's 
seperate registry? 

Section 6 - should you just change title of Section 5 then?

Section 10 - Considering this redefines every registry and has content
in it, maybe a note to IANA/RFC Editor to hold publication until URL
references to the actual re-organized IANA registries, which will be
more useful to future readers than stale content in Section 5.

Thanks,

-Jon