IPv6 Address Specific BGP Extended Community Attribute
RFC 5701

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Ross Callon) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-12)
No email
send info
I agree with Pasi's DISCUSS regarding optional transitive attributes. (We have unhappy operational experience that validates his concern.)

I recommend that we resolve the problem by inserting a normative reference to draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive-01. While we could approve the current document today, we couldn't publish it until draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive-01 is also published.

We should encourage the idr wr to expedite work on that draft-scudder-idr-optional-transitive-01.

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-11)
No email
send info
Section 1., paragraph 1:
>    IPv4 Addres Specific Extended Community, but do not support IPv6

  Nit: s/Addres/Address/

Section 4., paragraph 1:
>    All the security considerations for BGP Extended Communities apply
>    here.

  It would be useful to provide a reference.

Section 6., paragraph 2:
>    [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
>    Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

  The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC
  2119 boilerplate text. Suggest to remove the text and the reference.

(Pasi Eronen) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-13)
No email
send info
Comment removed as Discuss on draft-ietf-l3vpn-as4octet-ext-community cleared.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-12)
No email
send info
  It woudl be good to add the clarification requested in the Gen-ART
  review by Miguel Garcia to the IANA Considerations.  Please see:


Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection