Re: [babel] I-D Action: draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-01.txt

I like the new text. My understanding was not hampered.

I would personally prefer the "MUST be able to originate ICMPv4"
to be a SHOULD, because you could conceivably set up your
network in such a way that you never need to send ICMPv4.
For example, if all your interfaces have the same MTU, you won't
have any reason to send ICMP Packet Too Big.

David

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 11:49 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> wrote:

> >       Filename        : draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-01.txt
>
> I've made a full pass over the existing text, fixing typos and rewriting
> stuff.  I've almost completely rewritten the Security Considerations
> section, which I'd be grateful for people to check.
>
> Section 3 is new, and contains the word "hamper", a fact that makes me
> immensely proud.  I consider it as a starting point for discussion.  It
> differs from Donald's suggestion in the following ways:
>
>   - it merely states that a router MUST be able to send ICMPv4 messages
>     (after explaining why), implementation techniques are worded as mere
>     examples;
>
>   - it doesn't include Donald's suggestions to (1) use a randomly drawn
>     address or (2) use the Babel dummy address, as I think they deserve
>     further discussion.
>
> Finally, I did not change the intended status (Experimental to Standards
> Track), as it is not my role to gauge whether there is sufficient
> consensus on this subject.
>
> -- Juliusz
>
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> babel@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
>