Re: [babel] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-19: (with COMMENT)

[Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]>]

> * I couldn't find where any of the multi-byte numeric fields have their
>   endianness specified.

Good catch, I'll fix that.

> [ section 3.6 ]

> * s/this kind of instabilities/these kind of instabilities/, I think

By my ken, it can be either « this kind » or « these kinds ».  I am not
a native speaker, but I simply don't see how « these kind » can possibly
be correct.  Would you care to explain?

> [ section 3.8.1.2 ]

> * Perhaps s/it has finite metric/it has a finite metric/

I am fairly positive that this formulation is standard in mathematics.
A quick Google search gives the following:

  A ring R is said to have finite length as a ring if it has finite length
  as left R module.

  any system which has finite size in at least one space dimension.

  one shows that X∩Γ has finite cardinal

> [ section 4.4 ]

> * Can a sub-TLV have sub-TLVs of its own?

The document does not explicitly disallow sub-sub-TLVs, but it does not
define their format.  If, in the future, an extension is designed that
needs sub-sub-TLVs, it will need to define their format itself.

As a matter of fact, there exists one proposed extension that uses
sub-sub-TLVs (draft-zhang-bier-babel-extensions).  It uses sub-sub-TLVs
that have the exact same format as OSPF sub-TLVs, so it uses sub-sub-TLVs
in a format that is not culturally compatible with the rest of Babel.
This is fine, and does not need to be regulated by 6126bis.

> [ section 4.5 ]

> * s/derived derived/derived/

Done, thanks.

> [ Appendix A.3 ]

> * s/results ;/results;/ maybe

Done, thanks.

— Juliusz