Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-12-16
Requested 2016-12-02
Authors Job Snijders
Draft last updated 2016-12-27
Completed reviews Opsdir Telechat review of -02 by Mehmet Ersue
Genart Last Call review of -00 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -00 by Radia Perlman (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -02 by Meral Shirazipour
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour
State Completed
Review review-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-00-genart-lc-shirazipour-2016-12-27
Reviewed rev. 00 (document currently at 02)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-12-27


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at <>.

Document: draft-ietf-idr-deprecate-30-31-129-00
Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
Review Date: 2016-12-15
IETF LC End Date:  2016-12-16
IESG Telechat date: NA

This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
-[Page 2]:
"This has led to  deployment problems for new technologies such as Large BGP
   Communities [I-D.ietf-idr-large-community]."

Not sure if draft-ietf-idr-large-community explains the issues caused by the use of these attribute values ? If yes it would be good to point to that section.  If not it would be good to add short summary here.

Nits/editorial comments:
-[Page 2], Section 4 please refer to latest version of [I-D.ietf-idr-large-community].

-[Page 2]:
"   The squatting of values 30, 31, 129, 241, 242 and 243 has been
   confirmed by the involved vendors or through source code review."

A bit confusing, somehow it seems 30 is already deprecated as per: with reference to [draft-ietf-idr-large-community].
The switch between used of 30 to  use of 32 happened between v04 and v05 of [draft-ietf-idr-large-community]?
Perhaps should be updated to point to this draft instead?

Best Regards,
Meral Shirazipour