[babel] RtgDir Last Call Review: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06

"Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com> Tue, 27 October 2020 16:07 UTC

Return-Path: <hejia@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD1C73A0FEC; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oDY2C6Vhk5oq; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2AA013A0FF0; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml717-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CEFE7B3ED385C6BCC06D; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:06:58 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml717-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:06:58 +0000
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ( by dggeme703-chm.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1913.5; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:06:55 +0800
Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1913.007; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:06:56 +0800
From: "Hejia (Jia)" <hejia@huawei.com>
To: "rtg-ads@ietf.org" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
CC: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-babel-source-specific.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-babel-source-specific.all@ietf.org>, "babel@ietf.org" <babel@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RtgDir Last Call Review: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06
Thread-Index: AQHWrHVK/hFINaWsq0uISbw5qfgprw==
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:06:56 +0000
Message-ID: <38f2e15c65ed40628afe70f73822d1ec@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_38f2e15c65ed40628afe70f73822d1echuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/-Xr8G1DUMzBqpwjiXhMZVKAPCUI>
Subject: [babel] RtgDir Last Call Review: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 16:07:02 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: Oct. 27, 2020
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track


This document is basically ready for publication, but I have one minor concern that I think should be considered before publication.


The draft is clearly writtern and easy to understand. It describes the extensions to the Babel routing protocol to support source-specific routing.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

In Paragraph 5, it is written as

"In the original protocol, three TLVs carry a destination prefix:
   Updates, Route Requests and Seqno Requests.  This specification
   extends these messages to optionally carry a Source Prefix sub-TLV,
   as described in Section 7 below.  The sub-TLV is marked as mandatory,
   so that an unextended implementation will silently ignore the whole
   enclosing TLV. "

I understand the the Source Prefix sub-TLV is mandatory to support the functions defined in this specification.  However, "optionally" used in the paragraph above is confusing. One suggestion is to simply delete "optionally" in the sentence.