Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These 
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the 
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews 
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments 
just like any other last call comments. 


Easy-to-read straightforward document. I've some questions, comments, small issues, and pedantic nits for your consideration:

Intended status: Standards Track

This really "reads" like a BCP to me... has the intended status been discussed?

5.  Note for Those Writing RFCs for New Community-Like Attributes

   Care should be taken when establishing new [RFC1997]-like attributes
   (large communities, wide communities, etc) to avoid repeating this

s/etc/etc./

7.  Security Considerations

   Surprising defaults and/or undocumented behaviors are not good for
   security.  This document attempts to remedy that.

Indeed, but this is not an exclusivity of a security consideration. In fact, default values and behaviors are covered in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5706#appendix-A. 

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA Considerations other than to be aware that
   any future Well-Known Communities will be subject to the policy
   treatment described here.

Should then the IANA registry be updated to point to this RFC? 
Otherwise someone looking at https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-well-known-communities/

Will only see:
  BGP Well-known Communities
  Reference
  [RFC1997]


10.  Normative References

   [IANA-WKS]
              "IANA Well-Known Communities",
              <https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-well-known-
              communities/bgp-well-known-communities.xhtml>.

In this Reference, there's a few improvements needed:
1. The Author should have "IANA" org
2. The Title should be "Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) Well-known Communities"
3. The URI should be "<https://www.iana.org/assignments/bgp-well-known-communities/>"
4. Should a descriptive anchor be "IANA-WKC" instead of "IANA-WKS"?


Nit: Capitalization of "well-known" throughout. 

The document includes "well-known", "Well-Known", "Well-Known Communities", "Well-Known communities", and other variations that could use normalization.

Best,

Carlos Pignataro.