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

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review Erik!

Your comments make sense to me. We'll discuss
them amongst the authors and will most likely
include them in the next revision of the draft.

David

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:36 AM Erik Kline via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-19: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [ general ]
>
> * I couldn't find where any of the multi-byte numeric fields have their
>   endianness specified.  Consider a blanket "everything's network byte
>   order" somewhere appropriate, or maybe spell it out explicitly in:
>
>     * section 4.2:    Body length
>     * section 4.6.3:  Interval
>     * section 4.6.5:  Seqno
>     * section 4.6.5:  Interval
>     * section 4.6.6:  Rxcost
>     * section 4.6.6:  Interval
>     * section 4.6.9:  Interval
>     * section 4.6.9:  Seqno
>     * section 4.6.9:  Metric
>     * section 4.6.11: Seqno
>
> [ section 3.6 ]
>
> * s/this kind of instabilities/these kind of instabilities/, I think
>
> [ section 3.8.1.2 ]
>
> * Perhaps s/it has finite metric/it has a finite metric/
>
> [ section 4.4 ]
>
> * Can a sub-TLV have sub-TLVs of its own?
>
> [ section 4.5 ]
>
> * s/derived derived/derived/
>
> [ Appendix A.3 ]
>
> * s/results ;/results;/ maybe
>
>
>
>