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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Qin,

Please see inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Qin Wu <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 18 May 2021 13:19
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [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)
> 
> Hi, Rob:
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Robert Wilton via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> 发送时间: 2021年5月18日 18:16
> 收件人: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> 抄送: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Susan Hares <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> 主题: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: (with
> DISCUSS)
> 
> 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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 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?
> 
> [Qin]: I think it should be deal with in the same way as one defined in
> RFC7308, this issue has been discussed in the v-09 and taken out in v-10
> for simplicity. See last sentence in section 2:
> "
> The semantics of the EAG and the backward compatibility aspects of EAG
> with respect to the AG are handled as described in the Backward
> Compatibility section of [RFC7308].
> "
[RW] 

Referencing that text might be okay.

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.

Thanks,
Rob


> 
> Regards,
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
>