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

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juliusz,

Latest version looks good. See below:

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:42 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> 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   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]

> > 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