Re: [Idr] Opsdir early review of draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-13

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Dear Tim,

Many thanks for your comments, I have published v14 that should address it.

Cheers,
Jeff
On Feb 16, 2021, 5:20 AM -0800, Tim Chown <[e-mail]>, wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thanks, a couple of points responded to below, rest trimmed…
>
> > On 16 Feb 2021, at 03:39, Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2021, 8:31 AM -0800, Tim Chown via Datatracker <[e-mail]>, wrote:
> >
> > Nits:
> >
> > Abstract:
> >
> > The abstract doesn’t actually say what this draft defines.
> > Add at the end of the current abstract paragraph something like “This document
> > defines extensions to BGP-LS for advertisement of extended administrative
> > groups (EAGs) to allow it to support administrative groups of size greater than
> > [jeff] in this context - “extended” (RFC7308) means - larger that 32 bits, I’ll happily clarify this
> > 32 bits.”
>
> Thanks. The abstract only states the problem, not what the document provides as the solution.
>
> > Section 1:
> >
> > The BGP-LS advertisement is encoded -> The BGP-LS advertisement for the
> > originally defined (non-extended) administrative groups is encoded (Adds
> > clarity)
> > [jeff] you’d like me to compare extended encoding to the original (non-extended) one? Please note - the draft doesn’t define new attributes, EAG has been defined in the RFC7308, but provides BGP-LS transport for it
>
> No need, my point is that reading it as is it’s not clear which administrative groups that text refers to.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tim
>