Re: [homenet] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 10 May 2018 01:10 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9726012E858; Wed, 9 May 2018 18:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=AHzE0tbG; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=WAc8J+Br
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 Fu78532fOJb1; Wed, 9 May 2018 18:10:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97EC012DA2C; Wed, 9 May 2018 18:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D682321C1E; Wed, 9 May 2018 21:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 09 May 2018 21:10:04 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=sRJ90pUJq1axDL99XwvNJUqLu4eH3 U5s1bzR3wIRQQk=; b=AHzE0tbGyeJGdrmLwVj79ymZNMgUHVz5C1IJAgxDdeq5Y nMIuREyS9qtF4OURywET2u/KIjHAJtgWsxPZp3twgNkBXwMezTTC7Vw1jyZZHVb4 nFTAMmykkUik5IUm+jpZKcyH3c/Ze/hxpGWP6fcZ3IqvVbogTYZjNXn2hi1w8fRA CdA5RV5mvl38YnlsoJE22JJXt6DZINUk+uoy5zWo5dh+ALhj9NeuDnPHjZhfuK5D JpdckgqNIvPZOeEG7SaunBpPRCa/JpmM6pU/093fx+f/gguxpYos1Q7I/ieGg6uD 5zYov5IPYF9GYrhWTBYD469SIjGnEdXph83OMeVlQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=sRJ90p UJq1axDL99XwvNJUqLu4eH3U5s1bzR3wIRQQk=; b=WAc8J+BrFDn6SpfVI921Fh AtslFy+aVmAtSQYjtxRGW/w0uNZGBLmt3CdGTaR6IJSamYLYj20qg6DcDm6WnHst k27zeZM1VU8NPTQNLnMFNrljGHwF64TGNOItltz2GcLLNIUKzxctpJ4uTF8B9lrI wINT/cU1DCBGVApfXEp9kLMi/yCrv8Ou4ZM84fNnOOko+Ap0J2H/PQ9c0lFiQsnd /RqCsW9ebGY2fFODXgr+wrbo/Cxl00oTlAExpRnZKgKlQJPUx4gAI5kTrTQFVtCD 3w+nRm29mpzMNZZafABE5pDVsNrRxz8DfexyiA38R0d/HAeOp9DGW+Tdlt2PWDyg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:7JvzWllG6MTqd3PPUSzG0IjJ09okMWB4Xn18SHi3fUMVEyu8esylIw>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.81]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4C0D9E4076; Wed, 9 May 2018 21:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <151914881778.3979.5852568551524317238@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 21:10:02 -0400
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, homenet@ietf.org, draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <85BAA379-D6CD-48FD-9763-1D84E8E6E05E@cooperw.in>
References: <151914881778.3979.5852568551524317238@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/iB3hrTAL-0zZWdBURRr6FlJsl5o>
Subject: Re: [homenet] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05
X-BeenThere: homenet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <homenet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/homenet/>
List-Post: <mailto:homenet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet>, <mailto:homenet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 01:10:11 -0000

Stewart, thanks for your review. Authors, thanks for the lively discussion. :) I think it has improved the document. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 12:46 PM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2018-02-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: This is understandable, and close to completion. There are a few minor
> points that need attention, and couple of major points that may just need
> clarification.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> In addition,
>      if implementations use conflicting route selection policies,
>      persistent oscillations might occur.
> SB> Is this consistent with the statement earlier in the para that
> SB> " Distinct
> SB>   implementations of RFC 6126bis Babel will interoperate, in the
> SB>   sense that they will maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths"?
> 
> =======
> 
> Since IPv6 has some
>      features that make implementations somewhat simpler and more
>      reliable (notably link-local addresses), we require carrying
>      control data over IPv6.
> SB> Earlier you said that IPv4 also had Link Local addresses, so how
> SB> can link local addresses be the deciding selection criteria? Is there
> SB> something technically better about IPv6 LL?
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
>      Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a "killer
>      feature" of Homenet, something that is requested by our users and
>      easy to explain to our bosses.  In the absence of dynamically
> 
> SB> Not sure explicability to your boss counts for much as a basis for
> SB> a feature an international standard.
> 
> ======
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> Abstract
> 
>   This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and
>   its extensions that a Homenet router must implement, as well as the
>   interactions between HNCP and Babel.
> 
> SB> HNCP needs to be expanded
> SB> Both need a reference, but the reference needs to be expanded
> SB> i.e. RFC7788 not [RFC7788]
> 
> =====
> 
>   The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of HNCP [RFC7788], a
> SB> HNCP needs to be expanded on first use
> 
> =====
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art