Re: [GROW] Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05.txt> (Use of BGP Large Communities) to Informational RFC

[Job Snijders <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:46:15AM -0400, Jay Borkenhagen wrote:
> On 07-April-2017, The IESG writes:
>  > 
>  > The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
>  > (grow) to consider the following document:
>  > - 'Use of BGP Large Communities'
>  >   <draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05.txt> as Informational RFC
>  > 
>  > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>  > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>  > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2017-04-21. Exceptionally, comments may be
>  > sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>  > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>  > 
> 
> The following comment may not measure up to being "substantive", but
> those in authority can decide.
> 
> I have always liked the way the definition of the "BGP Communities
> Attribute" spec in RFC1997 was paired with RFC1998's "An Application
> of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing": the former for
> the "bits on the wire" spec, the latter for "how operators can use it."
> 
> draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05.txt's Introduction section
> currently reads as follows:
> 
>    BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal
>    opaque information between Autonomous Systems (ASs).  This document
>    presents examples of how operators might utilize BGP Large
>    Communities to achieve various goals.  This document draws on the
>    experience of operator communities such as NANOG [1] and NLNOG [2].
> 
> I would like to suggest this minor change:
> 
>    BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal
>    opaque information between Autonomous Systems (ASs).  In very much
>    the same way that [RFC1998] provides a concrete real-world
>    application for [RFC1997]'s communities, this document presents
>    examples of how operators might utilize BGP Large Communities to
>    achieve various goals.  This document draws on the experience of
>    operator communities such as NANOG [1] and NLNOG [2].
> 
> Thanks for considering, and very belated thanks to Tony and Enke for
> RFC1998. 

I would not object to this change. After all, the whole idea for
draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage originated from the fact that
RFC 1998 exists, so we might as well mention & acknowledge that. :-)

Attached is a HTML diff of what the -06 version would look like. Barring
no objections, I'll post -06 somewhere in the next few days.

Kind regards,

Job