Dear GROW, I support the adoption of the document.
Some comments for the authors: I suggest to reference RFC 9494 in TBD6 of section 2.1 to clearly describe the meaning. Regarding TBD5, the meaning of "marked as stale by any configuration" is unclear to me. Please describe in more detail. Would you consider to align the proposed counters to what is being defined in section 2.1 of BMP path status https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-grow-bmp-path-marking-tlv-00#section-2.1 ? >From an operator perspective, this would make a lot of sense since depending >on use case a statistical peering or per path view is needed. Best wishes Thomas -----Original Message----- From: GROW <grow-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of IETF Secretariat Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2023 6:19 PM To: draft-pels-grow-yang-bgp-communit...@ietf.org; grow-cha...@ietf.org; grow@ietf.org Subject: [GROW] The GROW WG has placed draft-pels-grow-yang-bgp-communities in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued" Be aware: This is an external email. The GROW WG has placed draft-pels-grow-yang-bgp-communities in state Call For Adoption By WG Issued (entered by Job Snijders) The document was previously in state Candidate for WG Adoption The document is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pels-grow-yang-bgp-communities/ _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow