1049 Implementations SHOULD provide mechanisms that map an arbitrary BGP
1050 community value (normal or extended) to Traffic Filtering Actions
1051 that require different mappings in different systems in the network.
1052 For instance, providing packets with a worse-than-best-effort, per-
1053 hop behavior is a functionality that is likely to be implemented
1054 differently in different systems and for which no standard behavior
1055 is currently known. Rather than attempting to define it here, this
1056 can be accomplished by mapping a user-defined community value to
1057 platform-/network-specific behavior via user configuration.
[] Moving this paragraph to its own section is an improvement.
[major] However, the Normative specification still bothers me because
the text is not specific enough for implementations to
interoperate...which I know is precisely the point (no standard
behavior), so Normative language should not be used. Please
s/SHOULD/should (to take the text back to what rfc5575 says)
1049 Implementations SHOULD provide mechanisms that map an arbitrary BGP 1050 community value (normal or extended) to Traffic Filtering Actions 1051 that require different mappings in different systems in the network. 1052 For instance, providing packets with a worse-than-best-effort, per- 1053 hop behavior is a functionality that is likely to be implemented 1054 differently in different systems and for which no standard behavior 1055 is currently known. Rather than attempting to define it here, this 1056 can be accomplished by mapping a user-defined community value to 1057 platform-/network-specific behavior via user configuration.
[] Moving this paragraph to its own section is an improvement.
[major] However, the Normative specification still bothers me because the text is not specific enough for implementations to interoperate...which I know is precisely the point (no standard behavior), so Normative language should not be used. Please s/SHOULD/should (to take the text back to what rfc5575 says)