Re: [babel] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Thanks for recognizing that we have addressed parts of your DISCUSS. I
think that the document is better as a result. However, that doesn't mean
that we will make further changes only because you would prefer the
document to be a certain way.

If the only remaining part of your DISCUSS is the absence of normative
default values, then you have to consider whether delaying the document's
approval is the best path forward.

Juliusz and I are failing to understand what problem you're trying to
solve. I agree that you're asking for something small, but we won't make
changes to the document if we don't understand how they make the document
better. As discussed earlier in this thread, the issues you describe appear
to be unrelated to the routing protocol at hand.

Feel free to clarify what singles Babel out for mandatory default values,
but please consider that lifting your DISCUSS is also a viable option given
that this is a minor point.

Thank you,
David

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:31 AM "Mirja Kühlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> Please also note that changes you already did are good (maybe with the
> exception of adding the second set of example parameters which we are still
> discussing here) and they  address already part of my discuss.
>
> Also note that Alvaro also still has a discuss on the document which is
> also related to default parameters. Unfortunately I have the feeling we
> don’t make any further progress about this point in the discussion right
> and would therefore like to rely on Martin as the responsible AD for
> further advise.
>
> Mirja
>
>
> > Am 08.01.2020 um 18:13 schrieb Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > Hi Juliusz,
> >
> > You didn’t make any concrete proposals for changes that I could commit
> to.
> >
> > Mirja
> >
> >
> >
> >>> On 8. Jan 2020, at 18:08, Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> As explained already e.g OSPF has a limit because all interval values
> >>> are in units of seconds, however, this is not the case here.
> >>
> >> I refer you to my mail of 17 December 2019 where I explain why this is
> not
> >> the case.
> >>
> >>> I have the feeling you are just unwilling to make any further changes
> to
> >>> the document,
> >>
> >> Over the last six months, Mirja, I have made dozens of changes, many of
> >> which I don't feel improve the text at all.
> >>
> >> What I'm unwilling to do is to break the structure of the document in
> >> order to adress a problem that is purely hypothetical, and with no
> >> commitment that you will actually clear your objection after I do that.
> >>
> >> -- Juliusz
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>