[babel] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension-05: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-rtt-extension/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Roman pointed something out that I'd like to develop a little further.

Section 3.3 includes:

   ... For these reasons, very old timestamps or nonsensical timestamps MUST
   NOT be used to yield RTT samples.

   We suggest the following algorithm to achieve that. When a node receives a
   packet containing a Hello and an IHU, it SHOULD compare ...

SHOULD creates a decision for an implementer; what comes after could be
completely ignored if the implementer decides that's appropriate in the
circumstances, and in theory it won't harm interoperability.  I don't
understand the choice being presented; why, if I'm following the suggestion
presented, would I not do what it says?

I suggest you take out "it SHOULD".  The entire paragraph is a suggestion
anyway; there's no need for normative choices to be presented.

But the reason I'm raising this to a DISCUSS is because the section appears to
assert a MUST NOT, but then buttress it by a handful of SHOULD NOTs.  The
latter are confusing because I could in theory choose to disregard them and yet
still comply with the MUST NOT.  Is that correct?  I feel like some
clarification would be of benefit here.


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

I support Robert's, Warren's, and Eric's DISCUSS positions.