Hi Bryant,
Thank you for taking the time to go through the document.
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:41:15AM -0700, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
SB> Even if you just copy the Introduction, the Abstract should
SB> really be expanded to help the reader understand whether or not
SB> they want read the RFC or if they had read it what it was about.
OK, we'll copy some text from the introduction section to the abstract
section to provide a better pitch why one would want to read this
document.
============
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
SB> considerations, or considerations that are of increased importance?
It is my understanding that RFC 8092 "BGP Large Communities" are just
like RFC 1997 "BGP Communities", but ... larger (for lack of better
words). Referencing RFC 7454 seems plenteous.
So, what if there are not any additional considerations, If there were,
they would've been (or are) covered in RFC 8092's security section,
right?
This is an Internet-Draft targetted for Informational status, I'm not
sure what you expect here.
SB> Is there is text somewhere that discusses the integrity and
SB> synchronization of the parameters and any consequences that arise?
the what now? Can you elaborate on the above?
===========
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.
What reference would you suggest? You feel the section 2.2 text cannot
stand on its own?
Kind regards,
Job