Re: [babel] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-03

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 09 June 2021 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D50D3A1893; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 07:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.847
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wMJb0sUxsck7; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 07:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x132.google.com (mail-il1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 632E63A1891; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 07:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x132.google.com with SMTP id b5so26216797ilc.12; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 07:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Qb4QBACY40NcCDgkPDWYWDXTr3opJc6/3nDHA3/hWPo=; b=RHcbWDVNnJL04fq2lCAO6PevkjL7Jb0MO0qBUeAK5Vt8tIzgDNObqwBSqLudrhMbYM HcXGRjzwrRS2/YLPIPM2v5xlDFEtAcwwdBbUjcvVBwIYmMtgw7UsklLaT3rKr8Uy9WWO 6mCmg8s6k2+rnKHzOta4iXzgT1lLm8IQbB7FD9zXZBzQ7Ig/odmWIOx0hBl83Yt11FdI pkvfVPBycVN0E6SYG6/r+u6j8UXy3DaFXx+ZnUCVjV0w6/bWbT/DxNTvfEkmpCSD5O4i MK/w3BoafYoYrZt1lay+Wrlx6YnrpusdXsR1ZFOTt6KjlpopaoPrjLdwqtMH942uAWqy wj7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Qb4QBACY40NcCDgkPDWYWDXTr3opJc6/3nDHA3/hWPo=; b=b9HmAVSD5BBu5eeQx6ek9uUJCxoo5avIpAdZBhSay9wkT+SYp22CwQP95WOhoaFOMU DFoxoHjYS6qDuNIb7BcZStLMSmxOaPxL1J1rEqdjhMWZNMHZKh4t/gII+r9GUJSKRPOI UX6JAORxxq70LBZ6L2fmKBRIWJZnpyZ8u32ktOcxN2FM8kkffbdr5X9OuPITr6dIzKZa d6A/OcV9z68UAAGlP9T+KvJ8/p0M0+1NL/e3Qh1gfdEanToUN7JV+h5+uOiQnH6lCGnS 5OATVxmEuFHG7QduSe2ZW3z1d8mHZTnwwnfKW76GrrX3zFx7CUCrhKAtrwzxOwp3yieJ nb7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530SetwRbXvsRFxiODAgUTMnuRd1iXQ4St4lNPvgTwJKnhxrMqEU BwjTeKaYQ8t1y6+BluoL5hf+PDGSysbpLjp/1Jw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsC0dCuN1Lj6DMVxCfo0kNzXu3oS13lkFpL++ZDX9du5akpIvsTgU9NaPkMKH3q2XPUHKPX7+ulHmz1wfnHEI=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1068:: with SMTP id q8mr18768550ilj.276.1623247760853; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 07:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF4+nEGXt+x6BsQNuXwL7MMgChEB574=dW77_y71XMoL_J1rBw@mail.gmail.com> <87v96nyzsv.wl-jch@irif.fr>
In-Reply-To: <87v96nyzsv.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:09:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEHjmxKggg0S21QK=7rYVaQvb4xiVG+jaJEKV0PE928rzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
Cc: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, babel-chairs <babel-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/FLq8Sv6iuPHkLWERXYhknS4kxsU>
Subject: Re: [babel] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-03
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: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 14:09:28 -0000

Hi Juliusz,

Latest version looks good. See below:

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:42 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:
>
> > I've done a review of this draft as Shepherd. See below:
>
> Sorry, Donald, I'd missed your review.  I've just submitted a -05 that
> takes it into account.
>
> > The introduction is generally quite good but, in the first paragraph,
> > some wording feels just the slightest bit off.  For example, it appears
> > to assume that ND or ARP would always be used when the next-hop to link-
> > layer address mapping might be statically configured
>
> The introduction has been rewritten.  While this section is non-normative,
> and therefore doesn't constrain implementations from doing what you
> suggest, I've added an instance of the word "typically" as a concession to
> implementations that might do what you suggest.
>
> > Globally TDB -> 4
>
> Done.
>
> > REFERENCES
> >
> > Update reference to RFC 5549 to RFC 8950.
>
> Most respectfully disagree.  The reference is used in the following
> sentence:
>
>     The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously
>     defined extension to the BGP protocol <xref target="RFC5549"/>.
>
> It is important to cite the older reference in order to give proper credit
> and be clear who got there first.

That makes sense. But I suspect other reviewers may trip over the same thing.

> > Section 2, 1st line: It is more common in IETF documents to say
> > "dual-stack" rather than "double-stack".
>
> Done.
>
> > anoncing -> announcing
>
> Done.
>
> > annoucements -> announcements
>
> Done.
>
> > administatoris -> administrators
>
> Done.
>
> > next hop -> next-hop   (7 times)
>
> Thanks.  I've checked that I consistently use "next hop" when it is a noun
> and "next-hop" when it is used as an adjective.  This is consistent with
> RFC 8966.

OK

> > eg. -> e.g.   (twice)
>
> Done.
>
> > It would be preferable, within the Normative and the Informative
> > References, that RFCs be listed in numeric order.
>
> In the XML?  The plain-text version is being sorted by xml2rfc, so if
> there's any issue, it's a bug in xml2rfc.

Ahhh, I was too quick and didn't look closely enough! The informative
references are in numeric order, including RFC 0826. But the normative
references have an RFC 792 :-) which got sorted after RFC 2119.
Obviously too minor to bother with now but I suggest that in some
future revision you change that to RFC 0792.

I'll go ahead and do the PROTO write-up and request RFC publication.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

> > I notice this draft generally uses British spelling. I think that's OK
> > as long as it is consistent.
>
> This is consistent with RFC 8966.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Juliusz