Re: [babel] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-03

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

One more thing I had overlooked: If a draft obsoletes or updates an RFC,
this needs to be mentioned in the Abstract and Introduction. The header
information on the title page says this document updates RFC 8966. But the
Abstract and the body of the draft pretty consistently say that it
"extends" the Babel protocol. Generally, the IESG has been getting stricter
about the use of "updates" although it does not have unanimous agreement on
whether or not "updates" can be used when a draft extends a protocol.

I think the simplest thing would be to remove the "Updates: 8966" header
from the first page.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]


On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 10:09 AM Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Juliusz,
>
> Latest version looks good. See below:
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:42 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > I've done a review of this draft as Shepherd. See below:
> >
> > Sorry, Donald, I'd missed your review.  I've just submitted a -05 that
> > takes it into account.
> >
> > > The introduction is generally quite good but, in the first paragraph,
> > > some wording feels just the slightest bit off.  For example, it appears
> > > to assume that ND or ARP would always be used when the next-hop to
> link-
> > > layer address mapping might be statically configured
> >
> > The introduction has been rewritten.  While this section is
> non-normative,
> > and therefore doesn't constrain implementations from doing what you
> > suggest, I've added an instance of the word "typically" as a concession
> to
> > implementations that might do what you suggest.
> >
> > > Globally TDB -> 4
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > REFERENCES
> > >
> > > Update reference to RFC 5549 to RFC 8950.
> >
> > Most respectfully disagree.  The reference is used in the following
> > sentence:
> >
> >     The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously
> >     defined extension to the BGP protocol <xref target="RFC5549"/>.
> >
> > It is important to cite the older reference in order to give proper
> credit
> > and be clear who got there first.
>
> That makes sense. But I suspect other reviewers may trip over the same
> thing.
>
> > > Section 2, 1st line: It is more common in IETF documents to say
> > > "dual-stack" rather than "double-stack".
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > anoncing -> announcing
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > annoucements -> announcements
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > administatoris -> administrators
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > next hop -> next-hop   (7 times)
> >
> > Thanks.  I've checked that I consistently use "next hop" when it is a
> noun
> > and "next-hop" when it is used as an adjective.  This is consistent with
> > RFC 8966.
>
> OK
>
> > > eg. -> e.g.   (twice)
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > > It would be preferable, within the Normative and the Informative
> > > References, that RFCs be listed in numeric order.
> >
> > In the XML?  The plain-text version is being sorted by xml2rfc, so if
> > there's any issue, it's a bug in xml2rfc.
>
> Ahhh, I was too quick and didn't look closely enough! The informative
> references are in numeric order, including RFC 0826. But the normative
> references have an RFC 792 :-) which got sorted after RFC 2119.
> Obviously too minor to bother with now but I suggest that in some
> future revision you change that to RFC 0792.
>
> I'll go ahead and do the PROTO write-up and request RFC publication.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail]
>
> > > I notice this draft generally uses British spelling. I think that's OK
> > > as long as it is consistent.
> >
> > This is consistent with RFC 8966.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -- Juliusz
>