Re: [babel] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-applicability-08: (with COMMENT)

[Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mirja,

Thank you for your review.

> 2.1 is not very objective and only provides basically two anecdotes.

I would appreciate it if you could spell out what it is that you find
objectionable about Setion 2.1?  The intent of this section is to give the
reader actual empirical data, I'd be interested to know why you find that
objectionable.

> "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 does not violate the properties on which
>    Babel relies, and therefore slows down convergence or causes sub-
>    optimal routing rather than causing the network to collapse."

Could you please spell out what it is that bothers you about this
paragraph?  The intent here is to share our implementation experience with
the reader.

> "No other routing protocol known to us is similarly robust and
>    efficient in this particular kind of topology."

Again, your objection is not clear to me.  Are you disagreeing with the
claim (e.g., because you know otherwise), or do you believe that this
statement doesn't belong in this document, and if so, why?

> (also still one "us" here)

Could you please suggest a better wording?

-- Juliusz