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

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

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].
"

Regards,
Rob