BGP Communities for Data Collection
RFC 4384

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(David Kessens) Yes

Comment (2004-09-15 for -)
No email
send info
Comment from Pekka Savola from the ops directorate:

However, what this document implicitly aims to do (whether knowingly
or not) is describe a BCP for *internal* communities, not just for
exporting to data collectors.  Who would bother to just munge their
communities to exactly these values just for data collection?

(Harald Alvestrand) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-10-21)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Michael Patton, Gen-ART

Still one spelling mistake (refered rather than referred), but -06 is good to go.

(Steven Bellovin) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-14 for -)
No email
send info
Nit:

In Definitions, "referred to coloring"--> "referred to as coloring"

In 2.1.

   A and B are defined to be peers when (i). A and B exchange routes via
   BGP, and (ii). traffic exchange between A and B is settlement-free.

I found it odd that this section did not define the term "transit".  It is 
mentioned in the introduction and touched on 2.9.  As a term of art,
it is hard to discuss "peering" without discussing "transit", since so
many of the operational discussions revolve around when one is used 
versus the other.  

I am not suggesting that "transit" should be its own category (the more specific 
categories given look fine), but it does seem like it would be useful to
include a definition and possibly indicate which categories fall under that grouping.  

As a purely individual preference, I think it would be interesting to pull anycast
routes out of the other special purpose routes, because I suspect the growth
in that particular special purpose.  But this reflects my own research interest,
and possibly not the best design.

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-14 for -)
No email
send info
  After the table in section 3.1, the legend includes:
  :
  : <R>  is the 5-bit Region
  :
  However, <R> is not used in the table.  Rather, the possible values of
  <R> are enumerated.  The legend entry should be replaced with an
  explanation.

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

Comment (2004-09-16 for -)
No email
send info
>    BGP, and (ii). traffic exchange between A and B is settlement-free.

Defn. of settlement-free?

>    Internal more specific routes are those routes which are frequently

s/more specific/more-specific/

section 2.5. which vs. that

>    Service providers often have settlement free interconnections with an

s/settlement free/settlement-free/

>    this community as 10876:4338 (0x1F2 == 4338 decimal).

s/0x1F2/0x10f2/?

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) (was Discuss) No Objection