[babel] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-19: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 21 August 2020 20:09 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis@ietf.org, babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, d3e3e3@gmail.com
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <159804054475.31858.7651107368431960573@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:09:05 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/TGqICWBwAz2YzAh3M_JGf-LxKiA>
Subject: [babel] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-19: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-19: No Objection

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-rfc6126bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One nit:

3.7.2 In the last paragraph, selection of a next hop is listed as both a "MAY"
and a "SHOULD NOT". I suppose that this not logically inconsistent, but the
context certainly suggests that's both significant and minor, which doesn't
make sense.

[babel] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Martin Duke via Datatracker
Re: [babel] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-i… Juliusz Chroboczek