Re: [homenet] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 09 May 2018 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C183126C22 for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 09:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.01
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id klwdPxCh9qd1 for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 09:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B43B512D892 for <>; Wed, 9 May 2018 09:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id q13-v6so45675281qtp.4 for <>; Wed, 09 May 2018 09:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=tmMfrvcqfnwxdXyWZQ7UukosLDIUBFByL/w0xn1IehE=; b=MXKLREjSh/pnOrHwHqm5f8umZF6c05fAuaK6in9UfeT6TI3bid9wBUHsjCPhs32CLc q1tGT5nnLapq7mlNvrh6H1VPq9pk2Gg9uvA9MSbJU1U86qVMRsPqRVxVU9wMrL0gtWNt 2A4ix0kFW2Hwl4sf2brBl8nh3Io54/9rOKfOko1dVqUc79y1FEs/kjBEo5raPxLwjHIs 20QDw5Gri7/vud5MGQYjaWU3yd9bxrS3GhIm42g4NopxE5CPr/W55qkiJr9SS+mE6MGI SBK2l+I52XxmCzzIrlB+P28Gl41QQMszeaF9uvyk1TRKAW48YXYuGifgyC7aOEgts0jG 2tkA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=tmMfrvcqfnwxdXyWZQ7UukosLDIUBFByL/w0xn1IehE=; b=JvgLozplPx11RPwXC4Aq719cTegcmtVmKJTlt3pR75x9JkkKD8l6gU3iuqZ4O5pjON Y5xqwNF00mXkq/z/HY3/7bzgEbDDrCJ0LlcJCoXDHg35qeze8z2u4eVeGBOmOckxUyl8 h6RX8kh039I99O0yHhSohBEBnBdScpSNSUfHZ+bASbxmapL6U8L46elZI4gMmEvcVw1i bl5qMuDTz7Zib5bi80T68RJew40HCXTeqerUytoJMTVUvF5DSzVgmxyc9dRy0qKqCt7f OoeX8DajhwT9ppqkOYrQ1kwS/Fr5fNun+HmHh+ACwnLv1BqXz1mQiQo/oxlHUMeUOauT 4qeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tAHx5Ip1l5joiIm/li1q/sbjyr4j5pv5PSnjNDb2xrp0QN3gCL2 JSB6g1FoSBNnscKaEsY5FKmSLw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpQB3oemw8RvOIH0V40JN1Y5xaSYH6PQ3dMs61Mw5FS0ZKeR2wgJw7V0O4sMZ15cxTYGOnamA==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:8abc:: with SMTP id 57-v6mr26333307qvv.147.1525884094783; Wed, 09 May 2018 09:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id s64sm21682207qkl.85.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 09 May 2018 09:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6C9538EA-4B23-461B-9EE8-517DC85B1444"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 12:41:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: The IESG <>,, HOMENET <>, Terry Manderson <>,, Barbara Stark <>
To: Alvaro Retana <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [homenet] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Homenet WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 16:41:38 -0000

On May 9, 2018, at 12:29 PM, Alvaro Retana <> wrote:
> My point here is that it is not clear
> to me that the WG explicitly reached consensus to change the declaration from
> the Chairs/AD.

If you read through section 2 of the document, you will not find a requirement stating that Babel or that this Babel profile is MTI for homenets.  So the document doesn't actually change the status of the consensus that you are talking about.  It does make this Babel profile standard, not experimental.  That makes sense, because this profile is believed to be correct, and has multiple interoperating implementations.  There is no reason for it to be experimental, at least none I'm aware of, and none you've stated.

So while it is an interesting question to ask what the current consensus is on the question you raised, that question is completely orthogonal to this draft's status as standards track.

I would appreciate it if we could avoid reopening that rather contentious discussion at this time.