Hi John, >> Q1: As far as I understand, the document only defines a new BGP OPEN Optional >> Parameter Type, but does not modify/add procedures in RFC 4271. So, is the >> document really an update to RFC 4271? And, when reading RFC 5429, I cannot >> find any text saying that new parameter types would require an update to RFC >> 4271. I also looked at a few other RFCs that add new values to the BGP IANA >> registry, and they were not updating any RFC. > > The document modifies the way a router parses the OPEN. It doesn’t just add a > new type, indeed the new type is only added as a special token to tell the > router to use the new procedures.
Would it be good to explicitly indicate that? Something like: "This document updates RFC 4271 by extending, in a backward-compatible manner, the length of the Optional Parameters in the BGP OPEN, and by modifying the way a router parses the OPEN." Regards, Christer > Nits/editorial comments: > > Q2: I suggest that Section 2 is renamed to "New Optional Parameter Type > code", > or something like that. OR, if the document really is updating RFC 4271, > perhaps "Update to RFC 4271". I’ve adopted your second suggestion. > Q3: I suggest that Section 3 is renamed to "Backward Compatibility", or > something like that. Done. —John
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
