[homenet] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06
Tim Chown <email@example.com> Mon, 26 February 2018 18:55 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8475212D874; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:55:36 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Tim Chown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:55:36 -0800
Subject: [homenet] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06
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: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:55:37 -0000
Reviewer: Tim Chown Review result: Has Nits Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This draft specifies the subset of the Babel protocol and its extensions that is required by an implementation of the Homenet protocol suite, as well as the interactions between Babel and HNCP. This draft reads well, is clearly written, and includes good, concise rationales for the stated requirements. The draft is Ready for publication, with minor Nits. I only have two minor comments: Abstract: ------------ You say "This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and its extensions that a Homenet router must implement" but the REQs are a mix of MUST and SHOULDs, not "musts", so perhaps use the sentence in paragraph two of Section 1, i.e.: "This document specifies the exact subset of the Babel protocol and its extensions that is required by an implementation of the Homenet protocol suite." Section 2.1 ---------------- REQ1: IPv4 also has "link local" addresses, under 169.254.0.0/16, as per RFC 3927, so perhaps here make it clearer why IPv6 link locals make implementations simpler and more reliable (or why IPv4 link locals do not). I know what you mean, but given the document defines IPv4 and IPv6 requirements, a little extra clarity here might be useful.