Document: draft-ietf-l3vpn-bgpvpn-auto-07 Reviewer: Harald Alvestrand Review Date: Wednesday 8/9/2006 3:20 AM CST IETF LC Date: 3/7/2006 Summary: Ready, a few nits This document makes me believe that someone who is expert in BGP and VPNs would understand it. I don't claim to understand it in detail, but what I do understand looks reasonable. A few nits... The "updates" section in the abstract is not marked "delete this when it becomes an RFC". A terminology issue: The abstract and introduction uses the term "VPN member", which looks like it means something that is a member of a VPN. However, closer investigation reveals that the term means "VPN which is a member of ". In particular, the sentence "the remote PEs will then identify the list of VPN members they have in common with the advertising PE" is hard to parse. Consider using the term "member VPN" or simply "VPN" instead. Tha IANA section actually doesn't say that IANA should assign these values - it just mentions the things that IANA should assign. The section will require rewriting to make sense when values are assigned and the RFC is published - consider using the format IANA has assigned extended community used for Topology values for VR-based L3VPN solution which makes it easier for the RFC Editor to make this section readable. Otherwise, looks good to me.