Hi,

Thanks for the draft.

I am the assigned Ops reviewer to conduct an "early" review of this draft.

This draft proposes a new BGP address family ((AFI/SAFIs, 1/76, 2/76)) and new Transport Class Route Target extended community, that enables the advertisement of underlay routes with identified classes. And the new CT address family follows the RFC 8277 mechanism to allocate MPLS labels to the underlay routes.

Here are my comments:

1.	It is suggested to define a section on Operations and Manageability Considerations to facilitate understanding on this aspect.
1）	Management Consideration as a sub-section: It seems that sections 7.9 to 7.10 explains the management of name space. E.g., the management of RT, RD, and Transport Class name space in sections 7.9 and 7.10 are described. And Section 13 Deployment Consideration seems also mentions the transport class/color namespace.
2）	Interoperability Consideration as a sub-section: 7.11 and 7.12 explains interoperability with the existing BGP protocol, which does not seem to be the focus of the BGP CT protocol procedure
3）	Sub-section that applies: Section 8. Scaling Considerations, Section 9. OAM Considerations, Section 13. Deployment Considerations.

2.	Section 10 Applicability to Network Slicing
It is recommended to clarify which specific section of TEAS-NS is related to Transport Class? In addition, it is recommended that the term be used with the TEAS-NS, for example, a TSC is defined as a Network Slice Controller in the TEAS-NS.

3.	Section 11 SRv6 Support
Section 13.4. Applicability to IPv6 also mentions SRv6. It is recommended that these two sections be combined.
Given that SRv6 is defined separately, should Sections 3 and 12 also indicate that it applies only to MPLS?

4.     “Community” usage confusion
Overall impression. Transport Class Route Target extended community is introduced in this draft, but mapping community and color community are also mentioned in many places. It is better to explain why color community is not reused? Also to clarify that Transport Class Route Target extended community not limited to BGP CT family?

Thanks,
Bo Wu