[Ballot comment]
This is a well-written memo that documents actual deployment history. I would be glad to clear this DISCUSS of the authors would add a sentence or two stating that the codepoint used in this document has been deprecated and may, at some point in the future, be reassigned by IANA. Depending on the context in which it is assigned, codepoint collisions may have adverse consequences.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a well-written memo that documents actual deployment history. I would be glad to clear this DISCUSS of the authors would add a sentence or two stating that the codepoint used in this document has been deprecated and may, at some point in the future, be reassigned by IANA. Depending on the context in which it is assigned, codepoint collisions may have adverse consequences.

IANA comments:

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there are two
actions it needs to complete.

First, the reference for the Connector attribute (value 20) in the BGP
Path Attributes registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-parameters/bgp-parameters.xhtml#bgp-parameters-2
will be changed to this document.

Second, the reference for the BGP MDT SAFI (value 66) in the Subsequent
Address Family Identifiers (SAFI) Parameters registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/safi-namespace/safi-namespace.xhtml will
be changed to this document.

IANA understands that there are no other actions required of it upon
approval of this document.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a well-written memo that documents actual deployment history. I would be glad to clear this DISCUSS of the authors would add a sentence or two stating that the codepoint used in this document has been deprecated and may, at some point in the future, be reassigned by IANA. Depending on the context in which it is assigned, codepoint collisions may have adverse consequences.

[Ballot discuss]
This is a well-written memo that documents actual deployment history. I would be glad to clear this DISCUSS of the authors would add a sentence or two stating that the codepoint used in this document has been deprecated and may, at some point in the future, be reassigned by IANA. Depending on the context in which it is assigned, codepoint collisions may have adverse consequences.

RFC 5742 review

I have been working with the editor of this draft after my previous review.

A few small but significant changes to the document allow me to revise my recommendation to the IESG.

I now recommend, according to Seciton 3 or RFC 5742

2. The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done
    in the L3VPN WG, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

Reason for this assessment:

This document is largely a historic statement of early implementations and deployments. The IANA section, which previously worried me, will now just cause the update to the registry so that the Deprecated code point can be tracked against the document that originally caused them to be allocated.

If/when IANA reclaims this code point, they will be able to use this reference to determine the impact of re-use of the codepoint.