[babel] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-applicability-08: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 05 August 2019 16:02 UTC

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-applicability@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, babel-chairs@ietf.org, d3e3e3@gmail.com, babel@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <156502095275.24400.10195847773477673173.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2019 09:02:32 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/deYiWuMZF_STVCr_cNUbTlAkcbw>
Subject: [babel] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-applicability-08: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-applicability-08: 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-applicability/



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

Juliusz,

Thank you for addressing my previous DISCUSS. I have edited my position to "no
objection".

-éric

== (previous) DISCUSS ==

-- Section 2.2 --

The 'bug resistance' property of Babel was perhaps learned during the
implementation, but, I wonder whether the document may simply state 'robust
with respect to bugs', this is quite a strong statement that needs to be backed
by facts or proof.

== COMMENTS ==

The title of the document is about 'applicability'; but, should it also include
'use cases' in the title ?

-- Section 3.1 --

The 2nd paragraph is too dense: should explain why Babel is a good fit.

-- Section 5 --

Comparison between HMAC & DTLS variants is probably irrelevant in this
document. Though, a use case with security in mind would be benefitial.

Also, the comparison should include all aspects including confidentiality and
anti-reply for both HMAC & DTLS.

== NITS ==

-- Section 2.2 --

As I am not a native English speaker, I wonder whether 'light' should not be
preferred to 'weak' in "These weak requirements make Babel a robust protocol"

-- Section 3.1 --

Suggest to change the section name into "Diverse networks" or "heterogenous
networks".

[babel] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Éric Vyncke via Datatracker