[babel] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-12: 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your work on this well written document. Most of the issues I found
have been covered in the ballot positions of my esteemed colleagues. I did have
one major concern that I would like to see addressed though. This is in regard
to backward compatibility with RFC6126 implementations. Due to the addition of
the mandatory bit and the processing associated with it, I would think that the
new implementations will not be able to properly interoperate with the existing
RFC6126 implementations. Is my understanding correct?

If so, I would like to see some text explaining what is the expected behavior
when deploying into legacy environments. If not, I would greatly appreciate an
explanation and I will clear.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Appendix F

I think a consolidated change log from RFC6126 would be more helpful in the
finished RFC for existing implementers.