Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:41:15AM -0700, Stewart Bryant: > 5. Security Considerations > > Operators should note the recommendations in Section 11 of BGP > Operations and Security [RFC7454]. > > SB> You do not address the question of whether there are new > considerations, or considerations > SB> that are of increased importance? Is there is text somewhere > SB> that discusses the integrity and synchronization of the > parameters > SB> and any consequences that arise? I agree that this draft lacks one detail of how RFC7454 applies to it, but I also note that RFC7454 also does not explain the dangers of ignoring the recommendations in S11. I suggest that the subject of removing one's own communities is subjective and a local issue for which we can only hypothesize. I'll try to address the latter, but I do not personally feel this is necessary. > =========== > > Minor issues: > > 2.2. Action Communities > > Action Communities are added as a label to request that a route be > treated in a particular way within an AS. The operator of the AS > defines a routing policy that adjusts path attributes based on the > community. For example, the route's propagation characteristics, > the > LOCAL_PREF (local preference), the next-hop, or the number of > AS_PATH > prepends to be added when it is received or propagated can be > changed. > > SB> Although these are well known to the target audience, I think you > SB> need some references in the above para. How so? Do you mean actual community values similar to the example in 3.1.1? Because these are int 4.x, as 3.x are examples related to 2.1. > Nits/editorial comments: > > 6. IANA Considerations > > None. > > SB> A little briefer than normal. Isn't it elegant. :) thanks for the review.