Last Call Review of draft-ietf-idr-large-community-11
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
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 12 Dec 2016
IETF LC End Date: 16 Dec 2016
IESG Telechat date: 5 Jan 2017
Summary: Ready with nits
First a question (I don't know if this should lead to a change in the
document). You say the use of reserved ASNs is NOT RECOMMENDED and later
that the attribute MUST NOT be considered malformed if it has a reserved
ASN in it. Is it clear what a recipient is supposed to do if one of
these reserved ANSs shows up here? If so (for my own education) could
you point me to where that's described?
Section 11.3 in the references is only referenced by the implementation
status section which you instruct the rfc-editor to delete. Do you
intend for the reference to also be deleted? If so, save yourself a
round-trip with the RFC-editor and add instructions now. If not, you'll
need to find a way to work a reference in that won't be deleted.
David Farmer makes a suggestion at
that looks reasonable to me. Please consider it.
The security consideration section start out with a sentence that
strongly implies the reader might learn something about the security
considerations for this document by reading RFC1997. That document's
security considerations section says only that "Security issues are not
discussed in this memo." I suggest simply deleting this first sentence.
Please also consider if there are other BGP documents with substantive
security considerations sections that you can point to instead.