Re: [babel] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-babel-source-specific (2018-03-26 to 2018-04-09)

[Matthieu Boutier <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your reading Denis,

> (Here it could be helpful to provide a reference that helps the reader get the difference right.)

Done.

>   However, this extension is encoded using mandatory sub-TLVs,
>   introduced in [BABEL], and therefore is not compatible with the older
>   version of the Babel Routing Protocol [RFC6126].  Consequently, this
>   extension MUST NOT be used with routers implementing RFC 6126,
>   otherwise persistent routing loops may occur.
> 
> (It looks like the right moment to stop for a moment and think. Could anybody briefly remind why leaving the protocol version 2 in 6126-bis is considered better than bumping it up to 3?)

You're right, I will add some explicit statement saying that "6126 does
not support mandatory sub-TLVs".

> (Is it correct that the model in this specification treats 0/0 same as any other source prefix, it is just the encoding convention that 0/0 is always represented with the absence of the sub-TLV? If so, it could be helpful to acknowledge this point in the document for clarity.)

Thanks, this was not said explicitly in the protocol operation.

> Please find below a patch for the XML source file with some trivial corrections.

Thanks.

> -<list style="hanging" hangIndent="10">
> +<list style="hanging" hangIndent="15">

I think it's fine with 10, as the base protocol uses this for all its lists.

Matthieu