[Idr] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: (with DISCUSS)

Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 18 May 2021 10:16 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: idr@ietf.org
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3981D3A1666; Tue, 18 May 2021 03:16:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org, idr-chairs@ietf.org, idr@ietf.org, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, aretana.ietf@gmail.com, shares@ndzh.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.29.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <162133297772.32220.12777492291928312809@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 03:16:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/KjpJSc7KQTijX9i1ZH1eMt5nn_0>
Subject: [Idr] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:16:19 -0000

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:



Thanks for this short doc, and sorry for the discuss, but hopefully it is
fairly easy to resolve ...

I think that it would be helpful for this document to explicitly state how this
attribute behaves in conjunction with the existing Administrative Group (color)
TLV (1088).  E.g., is the expectation that if this attribute is published then
the 1088 attribute would also always be published (with the same first 32
bits)?  Or is the expectation that this attribute can be published without the
1088 attribute being published at all?

Similarly, if a client receives both attributes there are there any
expectations to how it handles those, i.e., should it always use the new
attribute in preference?  Or otherwise, what should it do if the values were
inconsistent between the two attributes?