Re: [babel] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-applicability-09: (with COMMENT)

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> writes:

>> -- Per the sentence, “Given a sufficiently friendly audience, the principles
>> behind Babel can be explained in 15 minutes, and a full description of the
>> protocol can be done in 52 minutes (one microcentury)”, what does this mean? 
>> If this is to suggest to the reader that they too can learn Babel in 15
>> minutes, it is unconvincing and reads like a marketing statement.
>
> I stand by my claim.  I've done it multiple times, last time was back in
> July at Battlemesh, and a good part of the audience got it.
>
>> -- Per the phrase, “…including one that was reportedly written and debugged in
>> just two nights“, this statement is not convincing without context.
>
> It happened at an IETF meeting.  The author was Markus Stenberg.  Please
> indicate precisely what additional context you would expect.
>
>> -- Per the sentence, “In addition to the above, our implementation experience
>> indicates that Babel tends to be robust with respect to bugs: more often than
>> not, an implementation bug …”, this text is an improvement over -07 (thank
>> you), but I still view this as a high risk, anecdotal claim.  I strongly
>> recommend it be removed.
>
> I've removed this paragraph.  (I stand by my claim, but I've removed it
> from the document.)
>
>> (2) Section 2.2.  This section uses the designation of “strong” vs. a “weak”
>> property.  Where are those defined?
>
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/weak#English meaning 9.
>
> This is standard usage in mathematics.
>
>> (3) Section 2.2.  Per the sub-bullets of “These weak requirements make Babel a
>> robust protocol …”, what assurance does the phrase “does most likely not”
>> suggest?  Furthermore, the claim that implementation bugs won’t collapse the
>> network based on an uncited “extensive” experience seems too strong of claim.
>
> The part about bugs has been removed.
>
>> (4) Per Section 3.1.  How big is a “medium-sized hybrid network”?
>
> Covering a small European country and parts of its neighbours:
>
>   https://wlan-si.net/en/map/
>
>> (5) Per Section 3.1.  What are “meshy wireless bits”?
>
> I believe the formulation is clear, and I like it.
>
>> (6) Section 3.2.  Is there a citation for the successful deployment in
>> “large scale overlay networks, built out of thousands of tunnels
>> spanning continents”?
>
> Nothing that I can cite.  The sentence in the draft was painstakingly
> negotiated with the CEO of the company who run the network.
>
>   https://re6st.nexedi.com/
>
>> (7) Section 3.4. The utility of Babel in small and home offices
>> surprised me as I wasn't expecting such networks to mix IPv4 and v6; and
>> use an IGP.
>
> Do you wish me to remove this bit?  I only have two examples:
>
>   - Dave Taht's network, which is used to cover a camping;
>   - my home network.

I do this as well; including bridging multiple physical locations over
VPN tunnels, and multi-homing my laptop; all using Babel... :)

-Toke