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

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 18 May 2021 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 101713A0DA0; Tue, 18 May 2021 05:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 E0Ehmv-vIjVS; Tue, 18 May 2021 05:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F9493A0DBB; Tue, 18 May 2021 05:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.226]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FkvwX0qhxz6wkGc; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:10:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.152) by fraeml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:19:22 +0200
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.152) by dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:19:20 +0800
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.152]) by dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.152]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Tue, 18 May 2021 20:19:20 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org>, "idr-chairs@ietf.org" <idr-chairs@ietf.org>, "idr@ietf.org" <idr@ietf.org>, Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>, "aretana.ietf@gmail.com" <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution-16: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AddL30jY+vx2KWZqRy6Z3J1jT9vFwQ==
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 12:19:20 +0000
Message-ID: <2bfc125c57a1451b84dc296d67fbc24e@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.123.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/gRWEcNe05iC28tnhhM3MuFPhblY>
Subject: Re: [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
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: Tue, 18 May 2021 12:19:31 -0000

Hi, Rob:
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Robert Wilton via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org] 
发送时间: 2021年5月18日 18:16
收件人: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
抄送: draft-ietf-idr-eag-distribution@ietf.org; idr-chairs@ietf.org; idr@ietf.org; Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>om>; aretana.ietf@gmail.com; shares@ndzh.com
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].
"

Regards,
Rob