Re: draft-ietf-ptomaine-nopeer-01.txt

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

I just looked at what the text says about allocation and
which type of the community we're talking about.
Here we go:

> 4. IANA considerations
> 
>     Adoption of this proposal would imply the request to IANA for the
>     registration of a new BGP well-known transitive community field from
>     IANA.

Two issues:

1) The text seems to confuse communities with BGP path attributes.

   A BGP attribute can be optional/well-known and
   transitive/non-transitive. Both regular and extended communities
   are defined as optional transitive BGP path attributes. There's
   no notion of a well-known community in either case, so I assume
   this phrase has to be dropped.

2) I can see RFC1997 (regular communities) mentioned in the previous
   discussion. However, there's no notion of a transitive _regular_
   community. Such notion has been introduced in draft-ietf-idr-bgp-
   ext-communities-05.txt where extended communities are defined.

My recommendation would be to clarify with the authors which type of
community the really mean and ask them to change the text. If they
mean extended, then seems that the draft has to wait for the IDR one.

Alex