[babel] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 05 November 2020 07:49 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: babel@ietf.org
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068543A0A16; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 23:49:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific@ietf.org, babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, d3e3e3@gmail.com, david@opensourcerouting.org, as@cisco.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.21.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <160456253967.7318.72519100069215705@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 23:49:00 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/QO6zJYp7FqL-vAnP_wNGlEoRTkM>
Subject: [babel] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 05 Nov 2020 07:49:00 -0000
Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read albeit not always clear and specific (see later). The topic of source address dependent routing is really critical for IPv6 deployment, so, I really appreciate your work on the topic Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (trivial to fix), some non-blocking COMMENT points, and some nits. I also second Warren's DISCUSS on the lack of clarity in the section 4 example I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == Please update IPv6 reference from RFC 2460 to RFC 8200: I told you that this was an easy to fix DISCUSS point ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- == COMMENTS == Generic comment: did the author read draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing ? It is an expired RTG WG adopted document and is not even cited as informative reference. Same for reference to RFC 8678. -- Section 3.1 -- Is the first "prefix" the "destination prefix" in the following text? If so, then I suggest to write "destination prefix" or explain what is this "prefix": "The source table is now indexed by triples of the form (prefix, source prefix, router-id)." -- Section 4 -- May I suggest to add another example with 2 entries have the same destination prefix but different source prefixes ? -- Section 6 -- May be my lack of knowledge in Babel is the reason why I do not understand the loop avoidance description... As written in the text, a single non-source-aware router in the network could be enough to introduce loop (in specific configurations). Writing the following text appear to me as a little hand waving because how can this be ensure (I was about to file a block DISCUSS on this but I am trusting the routing AD on this topic): " Consequently, this extension MUST NOT be used with routers implementing RFC 6126, otherwise persistent routing loops may occur." -- Section 6.2 -- The last paragraph is also a little hand waving where it is assumed that network topology/configuration is specific to avoid a route starvation. -- Section 7.1 -- Should the text state the obvious by stating that the prefix (non 8 multiple) is padded with bits set to 0 on transmission and those bits are ignored on reception ? == NITS == -- Section 4 and possibly others -- Please use RFC 5952 to write IPv6 addresses. -- Section 5.2 -- Please introduce the "AE" acronym at first use (even if guessable in the context).
- [babel] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
- Re: [babel] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-b… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [babel] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-b… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)