I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at . Document: draft-ietf-grow-large-communities-usage-?? Reviewer: Stewart Bryant Review Date: 2017-04-18 IETF LC End Date: 2017-04-21 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This is mostly a well written document, although unfortunately there are a number of matters that really need to be looked at. Major issues: Abstract Examples and inspiration for operators to use BGP Large Communities. SB> Even if you just copy the Introduction, the Abstract should really be expanded SB> to help the reader understand whether or not they want read the RFC SB> or if they had read it what it was about. ============ 5. Security Considerations Operators should note the recommendations in Section 11 of BGP Operations and Security [RFC7454]. SB> You do not address the question of whether there are new considerations, or considerations SB> that are of increased importance? Is there is text somewhere SB> that discusses the integrity and synchronization of the parameters SB> and any consequences that arise? =========== Minor issues: 2.2. Action Communities Action Communities are added as a label to request that a route be treated in a particular way within an AS. The operator of the AS defines a routing policy that adjusts path attributes based on the community. For example, the route's propagation characteristics, the LOCAL_PREF (local preference), the next-hop, or the number of AS_PATH prepends to be added when it is received or propagated can be changed. SB> Although these are well known to the target audience, I think you SB> need some references in the above para. Nits/editorial comments: 6. IANA Considerations None. SB> A little briefer than normal.