Document: draft-ietf-grow-collection-communities-04.txt Reviewer: Michael A. Patton Date: 15 september 2004 Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. There are two important comments, followed by lots of typos that I found. The first concern needs to be addressed and then get re-reviewed before the document is acceptable. Doing something about the other would be nice, but I'd be willing to let it slide if pushed. The typos should, of course, be fixed. Since fixing the main concerns will require spinning another draft, the typos can be done at the same time, although they are of the trivial kind that can just be fixed at RFC final production. My primary concern is that in Section 3.1 the formats and examples are inconsistent. Since this is the crux of the document, I think these errors make it unacceptable in the current form. At the end of the table the notation is explained, but was never, in fact, used in the table. That notation is, however, used in the following diagram. I think this would read better with the parts in a slightly different order. This description also says that is 5 bits, which is also what the diagram shows, but the table only has 4 bits, where does the other bit go? Then, in the example, "the low order 16 bits" has only 15 bits, and thus the hex encoding would depend on where the missing bit goes. Assuming that the binary codes shown in the table should have one additional leading 0 results in the hex value shown, so I expect that's what was intended. Does that mean that the Reserved values start at 0111111111111111? There is also a simple numerical typo in the example, see the typos section. My other concern is over the amount of detail in the definitions. Since these are supposed to be used by readers to decide which routes are which category, it seems that more detail should be provided. The fact that the detail is actually deferred to one of the Informative references concerns me. Trivial typos to be fixed in RFC production ------------------------------------------- Section 2 "referred to coloring" => "referred to as coloring" Section 3 "RFC 1997 communities encoded as" => "RFC 1997 communities are encoded as" Section 3 "the providers AS number" => "the provider's AS number" Section 3 "where 16 bit AS number" => "where is the 16 bit AS number" Section 3 " is the encoding of the value" is pretty meaningless, I think to be consistent with the earlier text, the last word should be "classification". Section 3.1 "(0x1F2 == 4338 decimal)" => "(0x10F2 == 4338 decimal)" Section 4 "an Regional Internet Registry" => "a Regional Internet Registry" Reference [EXTCOMM] is to -06 but that draft is now at -07