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

[Geoff Huston <[e-mail]>]

> On 5 Nov. 2016, at 5:12 am, Job Snijders <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 

I say “YES” - thanks Job

Geoff