Re: [babel] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-06.txt

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> writes:

>> URL:      https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-06.txt
>> Status:   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension/
>> HTML:     https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-06.html
>> HTMLized: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension
>> Diff:     https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-06
>
>
> I've tried to satisfy all of the IESG comments; apologies to the reviewers
> if I've missed any, there were a lot.  The main change is that Section 3
> has been rewritten in normative style, as many reviewers requested.
>
> As far as I am aware, there are only two new requirements: the last
> paragraph of Section 3.2, and the last paragraph of Section 3.3.  I've
> checked that babeld is compliant, Toke, could you please check your
> implementation?

The Bird implementation is compliant with section 3.2, although that may
change in favour of asking the kernel to timestamp incoming packets:

https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2024-April/017592.html

Using kernel (or hardware) timestamps is a better solution anyway, IMO,
so maybe that particular recommendation needs rethinking?

We don't explicitly expire RTT state if the sanity checks keep failing,
so I don't believe we're compliant with the last paragraph of section
3.3.

-Toke