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

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

>
>
> > [ 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?
>

You're quite right; I think "these kinds of <plural thing>" is what I
should have suggested.

> [ 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
>

Sounding more mathy is good by me!  I suspect there's no loss of clarity
for the implementer one way or the other.

> [ 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.
>

Sounds good.

Not expressly forbidden meant to me that someone might propose it later.
But it sounds like that's "Working As Intended".  =)

Thanks.