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

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Tue, 07 January 2020 19:55 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
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 D9DCB120113 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:55:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=inf-net-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 RZETlorM8gfF for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:55:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x429.google.com (mail-wr1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95D6C12010E for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jan 2020 11:55:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x429.google.com with SMTP id t2so899862wrr.1 for <babel@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 11:55:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inf-net-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=r1cOypE+y6ISgleL+0tmcK6OFEJGVWXKe+zAiWAhyBE=; b=OcYfPghfH/LC8d2X7DvVsdDSgYGbP7HFZ7fzwyfJjNA4rIcncPdBdXQURc1fT2MqxG 0gE0mBrMTG/EQuOxDWJrGdHIQdLKLXJfquDQutba9qMSyi3j9BVPkvS5Jc/OfBFYlkj2 mfJKInL/b+raG9gps4eSnNUR2pJPgzCRqebFRbCCObhxG0SO2fDM9VSNhJn6/ya2/s6C 7yqEH4Sl0Sg19DFI31v6CYbkrrFxkYOoBMucdN411kwvbSKwMVif+CZFRL4bXdA3DI64 J8nntBkCdBSVOz0bU0EdZmbzjrmLNOlFU9wHaT+g46W6kwwS5th92kJAliRo5O2E78Tt UsUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=r1cOypE+y6ISgleL+0tmcK6OFEJGVWXKe+zAiWAhyBE=; b=H6v8ZY3WMMEuGhS8OaRk2sM0GUYa1iGiJ+d772tXnhQjS0TE2uZGBerVhku+oMdizN tonrbhLJQGcnRJHTQF6WlOO4Qrw3E5cI0wiBkuh1wJJU5IjAx+X1awgoGAKlWjPOHHvZ BWcQ7zYSyqn8eQmiryG6lbDL3wins6ZIinv2fFxEO/IETSQdNh4HDTIKgs7mi8Q6hF5d VYvDxVCtjDwUXRY3xdgUMAb6juzI/jsXNzDkOIlfLV8AhzqN9xatJh70B407ypbktCgC FWnSWdlk0dRFwCLwe+cHucluNcHsBUaDQCVRGQbiV/LiIePRGsYaiVGQaq8Z2zEGJElU naYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVJzO0YBLbzymrfzKmIVea5F1R1jF1XCpR93rjKB4VwkmBOW8Ce TrUum9FW6EHh1FzrANBOi5mG/Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzm/klhRwNoh/wqDbnyn/8Z7EGosf9uX5lazg1H7lYwi1Br3KbOSiXuy3PoHu+O9dNCGGSdlA==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6441:: with SMTP id d1mr759975wrw.93.1578426904660; Tue, 07 Jan 2020 11:55:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.19] (82-74-82-139.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl. [82.74.82.139]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n8sm1163512wrx.42.2020.01.07.11.55.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Jan 2020 11:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <87sgkrtriw.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 20:55:02 +0100
Cc: "draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis@ietf.org>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <019A54A0-5414-4D3E-8DC3-294CE7F9E774@inf-net.nl>
References: <156517737995.8257.5538554979559246700.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <877e7m8b88.wl-jch@irif.fr> <1A2B2C1B-1536-4E75-A8D7-C5612FB8AEDA@kuehlewind.net> <87imqzu1vc.wl-jch@irif.fr> <0C555879-5AF3-487F-A65D-95918A546783@kuehlewind.net> <87imomknn0.wl-jch@irif.fr> <B3A7583A-B4DE-4CE5-A74D-0D4C22FABD83@kuehlewind.net> <160C625D-866B-40D3-8549-7E714F8F8E9B@kuehlewind.net> <CAPDSy+6c_WxJ+KoT5uJZG=xCMomDgOukLXHdseQ10yL_+MGyiA@mail.gmail.com> <89C41AAF-B019-4872-9AED-278D6FE7EE0E@kuehlewind.net> <87lfra9a2s.wl-jch@irif.fr> <35766A70-6E3D-4216-B559-811F6B3FB46F@kuehlewind.net> <87r212n59b.wl-jch@irif.fr> <63DE7522-7FFF-49F4-9126-A2C4B66596B4@kuehlewind.net> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6115372A0DD@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com> <FDF8068F-3A71-4FE9-A24F-A2C39B94119B@kuehlewind.net> <87sgkrtriw.wl-jch@irif.fr>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/vo2iXiX2zSoG5d2-nn9MBxneSdI>
Subject: Re: [babel] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-babel-rfc6126bis-12=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
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: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:55:10 -0000

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 <jch@irif.fr> 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
> babel@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel