Subject: Re: [Idr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-idr-last-as-reservation-00.txt

From: David Farmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 14:00:27 -0500

On 7/23/13 21:09 , Jon Mitchell wrote:
>
> Inline, can pick these up in next (and hopefully final) rev.

Yea, collect any other comments for a while, too.

> On 22/07/13 17:59 -0500, David Farmer wrote:
>> This looks good to me and I support it continuing to move forward.
>>
>> But, I have a few relatively minor editorial Nits;
>>
>> - There is a Singular/Plural mismatch in the second paragraph of
>> section 3, "last ASN of the 16 bit range, 65535, are reserved",
>> should be "last ASN of the 16 bit range, 65535, is reserved".
>
> [JM] I will fix the wording to be more clear but this is not a
> singular/plural mismatch, your snippet missed the subject which was
> "subset of BGP communities".

Ok, I see what you are saying, you are correct, I misread it.  However, 
if you can come up with something that clarifies the intent, that would 
be great, as I may not be the only one to misread it.

>> - There is another Singular/Plural mismatch in the first paragraph
>> of section 4, "a Special Uses", should be ether be either "Special
>> Uses", or "a Special Use".  I think either way works fine, it just
>> needs to match. (Sorry about that one, my bad, this was in the text
>> I gave you)
>
> [JM] Will fix this wording.
>
>> - I think the order of the sentences in the second paragraph of
>> section 4 should be reversed.  I think it would be better to start
>> with "These last ASNs MUST NOT be advertised ...", then "Operators
>> that choose to filter Private Use ASNs ... SHOULD also filter ...".
>> The "MUST NOT advertise" is the primary requirement, and the "SHOULD
>> filter" is really just a recommended way of achieving it.
>
> [JM] Agreed.

Thinking about this a little more, now that we have the "MUST NOT 
advertise to global Internet", the "SHOULD filter" could go back to the 
"MAY filter" that you had originally.  Personally, I still think a 
recommendation of "SHOULD filter" is better from an operational 
perspective, but the permissive "MAY filter" is all that is absolutely 
required, now that we have the "MUST NOT advertise to global Internet".

>> - I'm not sure, but maybe, the first use of "Private Use ASNs" in
>> section 4 should include a reference to
>> [I-D.ietf-idr-as-private-reservation] and eventually the RFC when
>
> [JM] I don't see anything in the style guide, but I have been assuming
> like most technical docs only the first mention of a term requires
> reference unless you are calling out specific terminology or section.
> This was done in the intro.

Like I said, I wasn't sure, there are a couple other repeated references 
in sections 4 and 5, and I though RFC 6996 might be worth a repeat as 
well, but do what you think is best.

Thanks
-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: [email-masked]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================