Re: [babel] Work to do

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hello to all,
>
> ...
>
> 1. draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis
>
> This has been in last call, like, forever.  We're still waiting for IESG
> review, let's please make it happen.  Donald, Russ, could you please poke
> the responsible AD?
>
> ...

While I think there is pretty strong support for this draft in the WG, I do
not believe that the Routing Directorate review comments that were sent 3
January 2018 have been resolved. In particular those related to OAM which
were also discussed on the BABEL WG mailing list. I believe that if we just
declare consensus in the WG and request publication of the current draft,
our AD or the IESG will just bounce the document back to us for the reason
given in the Routing Directorate review. (There is also an Operations
Directorate review pending which I think will say the same thing when it is
done.) The BABEL WG Charter says "Particular emphasis will be placed on
work needed for a Proposed Standard routing protocol, such as ensuring
manageability and strong security. "


> 2. draft-ietf-babel-source-specific
>
> This is ready for standardisation.  Joel Halpern has reviewed -02 and -03,
> and the -03 review was positive.  Last call, please?

OK, I'll start the WG Last Call. I believe this draft should be normatively
dependent on rfc6216bis.


> 3. draft-ovsienko-babel-rfc7298bis
>
> Denis has produced a -00.  I believe that Toke is interested both in
> reviewing the draft and implementing it, and so am I.  The subject of
> adoption was raised at the meeting, and nobody objected.  So:
>
>   3.1 is anyone opposed to adopting this draft?
>   3.2 Denis, do you want to produce a new revision before adoption, or are
>       we welcome to adopt?
>   3.3 Toke, do you want to review before adoption, or are we welcome to
adopt?
>
> I am in favour of adopting straight away.

"Adopting" isn't that big a deal. People can review and discuss this draft
on the BABEL WG mailing list prior to adoption. So I don't see any rush.
I'll consider this message by Juliusz to be the start of a 2-week adoption
call.


> 4. Babel over DTLS
>
> Three points of contention:
>
>   4.1 does DTLS go over the Babel port, or do we request a different port
>       for Babel over DTLS?

As I said in London, I think it would be fairly easy to get a 2nd port
assigned if we want.

>   4.2 is the client port equal to the server port, or do we use ephemeral
>       ports on the client side?
>
>   4.3 do we leave Hello/IHU unprotected, or do we send Hello/IHU over
>       unicast and do something smart for link quality estimation?

I think you need at least authentication for Hello/IHU.

> I think that Antonin and David should get in touch, and produce
> a compromise draft that it not necessarily consensual (perhaps with all
> reasonable choices outlined).  Once we have a draft, we can ask for
> adoption, and work out the details at the working group level.

Sounds like a reasonable course of action.


> 5. draft-ietf-babel-information-model
>
> Barbara's working copy (post -01) makes a lot of sense to me.  I suggest
> she should submit -02 with the changes we discussed, and have it reviewed
> by Toke, David, and hopefully Markus.  Since Toke's implementation is the
> most complete, his input is likely to be the most useful (and critical).

Sounds good. Of course, anyone is welcome to review it.


6. Applicability document. The BABEL WG Charter says:

- As the Proposed Standard version of Babel is completed, an
Applicability Statement should be finalized to guide those potentially
interested in deploying Babel. This Applicability Statement may
include deployment advice and will be published as an RFC.


Given that there clearly are applicability criterion (there are occasional
posts to the mailing list that some particular application is or is not
appropriate for BABEL) and that I think the effort to produce an acceptable
applicability draft is pretty small, it a bad sign that
draft-ietf-babel-applicability-01.txt has been expired for over 6 months.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [e-mail]

> My wishes for a safe return home, and kisses on both cheeks to all of you,
>
> -- Juliusz