IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [babel] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Thu, 24 February 2022 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
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 333A73A0BC6; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 08:33:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 A0AWRWh6qwGz; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 08:33:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D70B33A0B48; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 08:33:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 21OGXe4P021904; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:33:40 +0100
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3E5C59E8; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:33:40 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id qspPt9fHGgVB; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:33:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9459C59DD; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:33:37 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:33:37 +0100
Message-ID: <8735k81axq.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com>
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <164330762512.24177.752612723340018892@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <164330762512.24177.752612723340018892@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/27.1 Mule/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:33:40 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 6217B364.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 6217B364.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 6217B364.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/KHAYvbU2V3lfuilCelz_qd0Tv_Y>
Subject: Re: [babel] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07
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: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:33:54 -0000

> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07.

Thanks for your review, Bernie.

> In Abstract and Introduction, the "updates RFC 8966"

The document is now Experimental, so I'm not sure whether it can update
a Standards Track document.  I've removed the Updates.

> I also know that this is an open issue within the IETF as there aren't
> clear tags to distinguish these kinds of changes.

Yes, and I suspect my position on the issue is not quite aligned with yours.

> For section 2, I wonder whether "the fame format as the existing AE for IPv4
> addresses" would benefit by calling that AE value (1) out (as is done in other
> places?

Done.

> Section 2.3 says "Prefix and seqno requests" but RFC8966 does not appear to
> have a "Prefix request"? I think this should be "Route"?

Right, my bad.  Done.

> For section 3 (last paragraph), does this imply that if the router has
> 127.0.0.1 assigned it can be used for ICMPv4 packets? Or is this not
> common for routers?

Good point.  Made it explicit.

> For section 4.2.2, would changing the title from "Other TLVs" to just "Route
> Request and Seqno Request" be useful (as these are the only other TLVs).

Done.

> And, would a reference back to section 2.3 be useful (as use of AE value
> 4 is SHOULD NOT).

Done.

> For 6, this is usually a request to IANA to update - the RFC editor would
> change it to indicate the allocated value? (Minor as it could only be an issue
> if there were multiple documents trying to assign value 4.)

The registry has a policy "Expert Review", and the IANA has already made
the allocation (after a suitable Expert Review).

Thanks again for your review,

-- Juliusz

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email