[homenet] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06: (with COMMENT)
Alvaro Retana <firstname.lastname@example.org> Thu, 10 May 2018 13:28 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF4A12D958; Thu, 10 May 2018 06:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Alvaro Retana <email@example.com>
To: "The IESG" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, Barbara Stark <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 06:28:36 -0700
Subject: [homenet] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06: (with COMMENT)
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 13:28:37 -0000
Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06: 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-homenet-babel-profile/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS! For reference, the discussion is here: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/A2PbWoYvxDbK0oqHFa_yPb80H9k I do have some non-blocking comments: (1) I think that this document walks a fine line when Normatively referring to Appendix A in rfc6126bis given that it is an informative appendix. In general, it does a good job at it -- I do, however, have one nit: "The algorithm described in Appendix A of RFC 6126bis MAY be used." I think that changing that to something non-normative would be good, perhaps something like "Appendix A provides an example of an algorithm..." or simply s/MAY/may (2) This reminds me; please use rfc8174 template (for Normative language). (3) The Non-requirements sections (2.2/3.2) are confusing to me. Maybe it's the "negative logic"... (3.1) What do these non-requirements represent? Are they requirements that were considered at some point, but discarded? Using rfc2119 language adds to the confusion -- consider describing these non-requirements not using it. NR2, for example, is worded as a requirement that was considered, and the rationale explains why not: an "implementation of Babel MAY include support for other extensions"...this is not a requirement because "with the exception of source-specific routing, no extensions are required". Ok. (3.2) Are implementers to interpret that the converse is true/expected? In the case of NR2, is a true interpretation that implementations SHOULD NOT include support for other extensions? IOW, while the option of other extensions is not a requirement, is not having them one? (3.3) The non-requirements in §3.2 seem a lot more confusing to me: (3.3.1) NR3 -- The text says that the requirement not considered (non-requirement) is such that "an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv6 prefix delegation MAY announce a non-specific IPv6 default route", but the rationale says that "announcing an additional non-specific route is allowed". I'm confused. Is announcing the additional route ok, or not? Is it ok to assume that optionally advertising the additional route is ok? If it's allowed, then why is this a non-requirement? (3.3.2) For NR4, is the non-requirement, i.e. one that was not considered, that the source-specific route SHOULD NOT be announced? This piece is also confusing to me because the rationale says (at least the way I read it) that it may be ok to advertise. It seems to me that the text is saying that in fact the route SHOULD NOT (or even MUST NOT be announced)...which brings me to the question: what is the requirement that was not considered? What am I missing?
- [homenet] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-i… Alvaro Retana
- Re: [homenet] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on dra… Juliusz Chroboczek