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

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Wed, 09 June 2021 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519093A1488; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 05:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Prurrlp6NNv; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 05:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E1763A1487; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 05:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/82085) with ESMTP id 159CggBe027318; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:42:42 +0200
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C3F8A86A9; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:42:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id vB2R2KbDEeGz; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:42:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from pirx.irif.fr (unknown [78.194.40.74]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46076A86A6; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:42:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 14:42:40 +0200
Message-ID: <87v96nyzsv.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Cc: Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, babel-chairs <babel-chairs@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEGXt+x6BsQNuXwL7MMgChEB574=dW77_y71XMoL_J1rBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF4+nEGXt+x6BsQNuXwL7MMgChEB574=dW77_y71XMoL_J1rBw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/28.0 Mule/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Wed, 09 Jun 2021 14:42:42 +0200 (CEST)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 60C0B742.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 60C0B742.001 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 60C0B742.001 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/upAMjSoxsOpepYP0aYL6rwDR-xA>
Subject: Re: [babel] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-03
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 12:42:50 -0000

> 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 migh 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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