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

[Teco Boot <[e-mail]>]

Agreed.
This is in line with for example the OSPF RFCs.
But for unmanaged networks, good advice from an authority is almost mandatory.
For Homenets, this could be draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile.

Teco


PS.
I don’t take the IETF suggested timers for modern LANs that serious...


> Op 7 jan. 2020, om 12:49 heeft Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Dear Mirja,
> 
> You made the very same proposition on 22 August 2019 (almost half a year ago!).
> Here is what I replied at the time:
> 
>    I am sorry, but I disagree.  The original document that I submitted for
>    IETF review back in 2009 had the structure that you suggest, but the
>    reviewer (Joel Halpern) convinced me to a adopt the following structure:
> 
>      - the body of the document describes the main algorithm, the parts that
>        are required to enforce the strong guarantees that the protocol makes
>        about lack of loops and forward progress;
>      - the appendices describe algorithms that have been shown to be useful
>        over some link layers but that might need to be tweaked when Babel is
>        run over new, exciting link layers.
> 
>    Since Joel did a good job convincing me, it will take some work to
>    convince me otherwise.
> 
> -- Juliusz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> babel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel