Re: [babel] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with COMMENT)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Thu, 05 November 2020 15:03 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160455279459.19842.7370627868131264527@ietfa.amsl.com> <87pn4st4gc.fsf@toke.dk>
In-Reply-To: <87pn4st4gc.fsf@toke.dk>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 07:02:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwb0nAhtoZtxyuXYWdefABUBV4h2eAOd2tuEQRvJQT2b0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, babel-chairs <babel-chairs@ietf.org>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-babel-source-specific@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008b049c05b35d6471"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5bKy7dZ-dGS8S5GRyFqyIjViKrM>
Subject: Re: [babel] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Thanks for that.  You might include a sentence or two suggesting this is
why that's a SHOULD and not a MUST.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 3:42 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> wrote:

> Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> writes:
>
> > Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: No Objection
> >
> > 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > What's an example of when one might deviate from the SHOULD in Section
> > 4?
>
> Only thing I can think of is that if someone already implemented a
> disambiguation like that suggested in the second bullet, and the
> underlying platform then adds native support, one could conceivably
> continue using the disambiguation instead of switching to the native
> support.
>
> The Linux kernel is an example of this: in ancient times there was no
> native support for source-specific routing, but it was possible to use
> the generic policy routing mechanism to achieve this. When the native
> support was added, it came with a new UAPI, so a routing daemon would
> have to change to support it, while the old policy-based way would still
> work. Or maybe an implementation wants to support ancient kernels with
> the same code and keeps using the policy-routing based way; it would
> likely be somewhat painful, but in principle I suppose it could work.
>
> -Toke
>

Re: [babel] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on dr… Murray S. Kucherawy
[babel] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-… Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker
Re: [babel] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on dr… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen