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

[Jeff Tantsura <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for your review!

It is specifically out of scoop of what BGP-LS consumer does with the data.
I’ll go ahead and update the text (both sentences) would that work for you?


Thanks!

Cheers,
Jeff
On May 18, 2021, 10:03 AM -0500, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>, wrote:
> Hi Alvaro, Qin,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: 18 May 2021 15:51
> > To: Qin Wu <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>; Rob Wilton
> > (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Susan
> > Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-
> > 16: (with DISCUSS)
> >
> > On May 18, 2021 at 10:29:24 AM, Rob Wilton wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rob:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Joining the threads...
> >
> >
> > ...
> > > Alternatively, having read the referenced text, having a sentence in the
> > > introduction that states that the BGP-LS EAP attribute is handled
> > entirely
> > > independently of the AG attribute would be sufficient. I.e., the text in
> > the
> > > introduction makes this seem like this is a replacement for, and in some
> > way
> > > related to, the EA attribute.
> >
> > Here's a suggestion...from the Introduction:
> >
> > OLD>
> >    These administrative groups are defined as a fixed-length 32-bit
> >    bitmask.  As networks grew and more use-cases were introduced, the
> >    32-bit length was found to be constraining and hence extended
> >    administrative groups (EAG) were introduced in [RFC7308].
> >
> >    This document specifies an extension to BGP-LS for advertisement of
> >    the extended administrative groups.
> >
> > NEW (append, or add as a new paragraph)>
> >    The EAG TLV (Section 2) is not a replacement for the Administrative
> >    Group (color) TLV; as explained in [RFC7308] both values can coexist.
> >    It is out of scope for this document to specify the behavior of the
> >    BGP-LS consumer [RFC7752].
> [RW]
> >
> >
> > Would that work?
> [RW]
> Broadly, yes. The first extra sentence would be sufficient to clear my initial confusion when I was reading this document.
>
> I don’t mind if you want to keep the second sentence, but it is a bit unclear to me as to what behaviour is out of scope.
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Alvaro.