Subject: [Idr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 19:14:25 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry-04: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-bgp-ext-com-registry/

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

Section 2

Should we also ask IANA to update the entry for the Unassigned range
starting at 0x0c in the "BGP Transitive Extended Community Types"?  It
currently shows as "0x0c-0x7f  Unassigned", but 0x40-0x7f are not
controlled by this (transitive) registry, and are rather in the
non-transitive EC types registry.

Section 5.2

I would probably put RFC 8955 as normative now that we're Updating it,
but it's a pretty fine hair to split.