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
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2017-04-21. Exceptionally,
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 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.
Jay B.