Subject: [GROW] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 18:20:43 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-grow-wkc-behavior/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) How this draft updates RFC1997 isn’t clear to me.  I also don’t see how it
is a standards track document.  Excluding the helpful enumeration of how the
user interfaces of various implementations work, the draft appears to prescribe:

-- Section 5: when new attributes are defined in protocol spec they should be
clear in their expected behavior

-- Section 6, Paragraph 3: vendors should document their implementations (and I
agree with Alissa and Alvaro who recommended this be MUST)

-- Section 6, Paragraph 4:  vendors must continue to implement the same
behavior for the user interface of the “set” directive

For me these summarize to document what you are doing; and keep doing whatever
you have done before (perhaps more precisely, continue to do in the future what
you have done in the past).  This doesn’t seem like new or clarifying behavior.

(2) A few editorial nits:
-- Abstract.  Editorial Nit.
s/Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated differently across various current
implementations/ Well-Known BGP Communities are manipulated differently in
current implementations/

-- Abstract. Editorial. s/.././

-- Section 5.  Each line in this section appears to start with a “>” as if cut
and paste from an email.