Re: [GROW] Last Call: <draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05.txt> (

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
>  > 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. 
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

	draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05.txt		draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06.txt
	Global Routing Operations J. Snijders		Global Routing Operations J. Snijders
	Internet-Draft J. Heasley		Internet-Draft J. Heasley
	Intended status: Informational NTT		Intended status: Informational NTT
	Expires: September 24, 2017 M. Schmidt		Expires: October 14, 2017 M. Schmidt
	i3D.net		i3D.net
	March 23, 2017		April 12, 2017
	Use of BGP Large Communities		Use of BGP Large Communities
	draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05		draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-06
	Abstract		Abstract
	Examples and inspiration for operators to use BGP Large Communities.		Examples and inspiration for operators to use BGP Large Communities.
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the		This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
	provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.		provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on September 24, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 14, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 36		skipping to change at page 2, line 36
	4.3.2. Region Based Manipulation of LOCAL_PREF . . . . . . . 10		4.3.2. Region Based Manipulation of LOCAL_PREF . . . . . . . 10
	4.3.3. Note of Caution for LOCAL_PREF Functions . . . . . . 11		4.3.3. Note of Caution for LOCAL_PREF Functions . . . . . . 11
	4.4. Route Server Prefix Distribution Control . . . . . . . . 11		4.4. Route Server Prefix Distribution Control . . . . . . . . 11
	5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12		7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
	8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		8.3. URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13		Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
	1. Introduction		1. Introduction
	BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal opaque		BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal opaque
	information between Autonomous Systems (ASs). This document presents		information between Autonomous Systems (ASs). In very much the same
	examples of how operators might utilize BGP Large Communities to		way that [RFC1998] provides a concrete real-world application for
	achieve various goals. This document draws on the experience of		[RFC1997] communities, this document presents examples of how
	operator communities such as NANOG [1] and NLNOG [2].		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].
	2. The Design Overview		2. The Design Overview
	BGP Large Communities are composed of three 4-octet fields. The		BGP Large Communities are composed of three 4-octet fields. The
	first is the Global Administrator (GA) field, whose value is the		first is the Global Administrator (GA) field, whose value is the
	Autonomous System Number (ASN) of the AS that has defined the meaning		Autonomous System Number (ASN) of the AS that has defined the meaning
	of the remaining two 4-octet fields, known as "Local Data Part 1" and		of the remaining two 4-octet fields, known as "Local Data Part 1" and
	"Local Data Part 2". This document describes an approach where the		"Local Data Part 2". This document describes an approach where the
	"Local Data Part 1" field contains a function identifier and the		"Local Data Part 1" field contains a function identifier and the
	"Local Data Part 2" contains a parameter value. Using the canonical		"Local Data Part 2" contains a parameter value. Using the canonical
	skipping to change at page 13, line 24		skipping to change at page 13, line 24
	and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,		and Security", BCP 194, RFC 7454, DOI 10.17487/RFC7454,
	February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.		February 2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7454>.
	[RFC8092] Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas,		[RFC8092] Heitz, J., Ed., Snijders, J., Ed., Patel, K., Bagdonas,
	I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute",		I., and N. Hilliard, "BGP Large Communities Attribute",
	RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017,		RFC 8092, DOI 10.17487/RFC8092, February 2017,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8092>.
	8.2. Informative References		8.2. Informative References
			[RFC1998] Chen, E. and T. Bates, "An Application of the BGP
			Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing", RFC 1998,
			DOI 10.17487/RFC1998, August 1996,
			<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1998>.
	[RFC4264] Griffin, T. and G. Huston, "BGP Wedgies", RFC 4264,		[RFC4264] Griffin, T. and G. Huston, "BGP Wedgies", RFC 4264,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC4264, November 2005,		DOI 10.17487/RFC4264, November 2005,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4264>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4264>.
	[RFC7947] Jasinska, E., Hilliard, N., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,		[RFC7947] Jasinska, E., Hilliard, N., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,
	"Internet Exchange BGP Route Server", RFC 7947,		"Internet Exchange BGP Route Server", RFC 7947,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC7947, September 2016,		DOI 10.17487/RFC7947, September 2016,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7947>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7947>.
	[RFC7948] Hilliard, N., Jasinska, E., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,		[RFC7948] Hilliard, N., Jasinska, E., Raszuk, R., and N. Bakker,
End of changes. 7 change blocks.
	9 lines changed or deleted		16 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/