Subject: [Idr] draft-ietf-idr-reserved-extended-communities

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:59:31 +0100

Eric, all,

> From: DECRAENE Bruno 
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 7:05 PM
> Subject: RE: [Idr] draft-decraene-idr-reserved-extended-communities-00
[...] 

> > I also think it's confusing to call these extended communities
"reserved",
> > as RFC 5226 ("Guidelines for Writing IANA Considerations") defines
the term
> > "reserved" as meaning "not to be assigned".
> 
> We can use a different name. Would you have any proposition?
> 

We could propose to use the name "Assigned extended communities". This
seems valid according to RFC 5226 (Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs point of view): "The binding or
association of a specific value with a particular purpose within a
namespace is called an assigned number (or assigned value, or sometimes
a "code point", "protocol constant", or "protocol parameter").  Each
assignment of a value in a namespace is called a registration"

Would this be fine for you? / Any comment on this proposition?

In the absence of any objections within the next two weeks I'll issue a
revised version which reflects the above proposition.

Thanks,
Regards,
Bruno