Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15

Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 19 April 2021 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 545543A37D7; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:56:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AnTDb-goysqw; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:56:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F21823A37CF; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id w8so20004301pfn.9; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version; bh=INIW/ucRVXk3KnrT3FforRgwBGP7vydne/FK6OHhLbo=; b=lt6hIt6fLqDfTRbL/ZmLLgtVKSOSUtWudTpkRPSXGuQyn2GzKoIAAVnHqIgKlRFyd5 DYb8DdBekqAlE/S2u8N7OmZKiGWeVVlrSpcPqhvJiuXN9D4paL3v5M/sUw1UPlWgJiLC TTudXmpnFn6e98NbwHreO2gzBVevHYcYJhVhvNCIanGWql2yPEx04IUTnseShzKCmWm4 yrRxDjaBLoYSjSWCT5GIMBMrcEJXn9Y4bTqV7D9uiGp9IfHz65tmnep8wR47wtZSsRhY bNrx37grwC57GrbTlmEUFFUte3qlJyv3VUiYOLj+olyqd9T0k3V029fMDeTO0IGeY5FR HVlg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version; bh=INIW/ucRVXk3KnrT3FforRgwBGP7vydne/FK6OHhLbo=; b=Y6g7KzsE4l2TyBm2v9wqQnNsR09FJwwHsz/1AfsMDdlLctrbBkqJiI27k2evTy1bZs obXnzm2Q9e7z+HMraM5RCsK+YfdrOU3isaio3jjpxxlgZJMg7M0E6zzMBDhQe5+DbTxZ i/wFL/EUVzUqEjNfcfwt5sT893MHrGNaGfFKKNtbK2ifKgfPmtl9g/gQeROy4Av/I8UM UWhfx7Tsv0Qsltqz9FDN5hCtIoK7nB+olnOLSYyT48RjfwM9QvW2j+BuoDRTJnA57gQ6 7n1xmpvF2b2jHDVBrrf2iLH0zRv63e/5d9ODa/2kg6X0025CtOuqtZXNu66pkUUZCqOJ KQiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5309Q+8nBMKN/SJKjr7uXmCPCbBchkkqf9+UUZvErrYYzr88Pp6Z bZduetn+M6cfCopPSmUEQmY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzbfmqv5a+tHAnfBSl2YnVVTnVR25HOrKkHoW2CjL3qUE9TA28qyo4+SrLfAEShR19Xe6quxw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:b00b:: with SMTP id h11mr12257831pgf.204.1618847808339; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (c-73-63-232-212.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.63.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i9sm17230787pjh.9.2021.04.19.08.56.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 08:56:41 -0700
From: Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)" <ketant=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, "=?utf-8?Q?draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution=40ietf.org?=" <draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org>, "Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <ginsberg@cisco.com>
Cc: "=?utf-8?Q?idr-chairs=40ietf.org?=" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, IDR List <idr@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <86956aab-f471-42b7-94de-29e77975320c@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB4352822BA6CA5710DCFD0E8EC1499@MN2PR11MB4352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAMMESsy7QcDch_iPwou6sEHLWGoFUAir=TprfsoZ_T-yuipcBg@mail.gmail.com> <7c725fa0-52ec-4713-98e3-9bd83d4cb8e3@Spark> <CAMMESswiDQQPvTb=mHMvmaBi5b9QzLHM7xgMnRfP+N5Sd=8qMw@mail.gmail.com> <MW3PR11MB4570A05097A110BA78D72C34C1499@MW3PR11MB4570.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <MN2PR11MB4352822BA6CA5710DCFD0E8EC1499@MN2PR11MB4352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: 86956aab-f471-42b7-94de-29e77975320c@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="607da83e_625558ec_428"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/53gvi-ti_S-Z6JI8yyyI6JUTW-Y>
Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:56:56 -0000

Alvaro,

I’m with Ketan/Les here, I cleaned up the text though

Cheers,
Jeff
On Apr 19, 2021, 8:36 AM -0700, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <ginsberg@cisco.com>om>, wrote:
> Alvaro -
>
> To add to what Ketan has said...
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7308.html#section-2.1 defines the format as one or more 32 bit " Extended Admin Groups".
> One could argue that it might have better to define EAG as one or more 32 bit "Admin Groups", but that isn’t what RFC 7308 says.
>
> I therefore think that draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution is consistent with RFC 7308 and should go forward as is.
>
> Les
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Idr <idr-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Ketan Talaulikar (ketant)
> > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 8:13 AM
> > To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>om>; draft-ietf-idr-eag-
> > distribution@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> > Cc: idr-chairs@ietf.org; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; IDR List
> > <idr@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Idr] AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15
> >
> > Hi Alvaro,
> >
> > Regarding your 2nd point (that I picked from the IDR archive):
> >
> > There is a single AG/EAG value for a link and hence a single TLV. What EAG
> > (RFC7308) allows is a larger size value (i.e. more bits in multiples of 32) to be
> > used when the requirement is for more than 32 bits (i.e. link colors) in a given
> > deployment.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ketan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
> > Sent: 19 April 2021 20:28
> > To: draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org; Jeff Tantsura
> > <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>
> > Cc: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; idr-chairs@ietf.org; IDR List
> > <idr@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: AD Review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-15
> >
> > On April 18, 2021 at 7:47:22 PM, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jeff:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Just a couple of points -- one major.  I'm starting the IETF Last Call
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idr mailing list
> > Idr@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr