On 07-April-2017, The IESG writes: > > The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG > (grow) to consider the following document: > - 'Use of BGP Large Communities' > <draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05.txt> as Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2017-04-21. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > The following comment may not measure up to being "substantive", but those in authority can decide. I have always liked the way the definition of the "BGP Communities Attribute" spec in RFC1997 was paired with RFC1998's "An Application of the BGP Community Attribute in Multi-home Routing": the former for the "bits on the wire" spec, the latter for "how operators can use it." draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-05.txt's Introduction section currently reads as follows: BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal opaque information between Autonomous Systems (ASs). This document presents examples of how operators might utilize BGP Large Communities to achieve various goals. This document draws on the experience of operator communities such as NANOG [1] and NLNOG [2]. I would like to suggest this minor change: BGP Large Communities [RFC8092] provide a mechanism to signal opaque information between Autonomous Systems (ASs). In very much the same way that [RFC1998] provides a concrete real-world application for [RFC1997]'s communities, this document presents examples of how operators might utilize BGP Large Communities to achieve various goals. This document draws on the experience of operator communities such as NANOG [1] and NLNOG [2]. Thanks for considering, and very belated thanks to Tony and Enke for RFC1998. Jay B.