Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:41:15AM -0700, Stewart Bryant:
5. Security Considerations
Operators should note the recommendations in Section 11 of BGP
Operations and Security [RFC7454].
SB> You do not address the question of whether there are new
considerations, or considerations
SB> that are of increased importance? Is there is text somewhere
SB> that discusses the integrity and synchronization of the
parameters
SB> and any consequences that arise?
I agree that this draft lacks one detail of how RFC7454 applies to it, but
I also note that RFC7454 also does not explain the dangers of ignoring
the recommendations in S11. I suggest that the subject of removing one's
own communities is subjective and a local issue for which we can only
hypothesize. I'll try to address the latter, but I do not personally feel
this is necessary.
===========
Minor issues:
2.2. Action Communities
Action Communities are added as a label to request that a route be
treated in a particular way within an AS. The operator of the AS
defines a routing policy that adjusts path attributes based on the
community. For example, the route's propagation characteristics,
the
LOCAL_PREF (local preference), the next-hop, or the number of
AS_PATH
prepends to be added when it is received or propagated can be
changed.
SB> Although these are well known to the target audience, I think you
SB> need some references in the above para.
How so? Do you mean actual community values similar to the example in 3.1.1?
Because these are int 4.x, as 3.x are examples related to 2.1.
Nits/editorial comments:
6. IANA Considerations
None.
SB> A little briefer than normal.
Isn't it elegant. :)
thanks for the review.