[homenet] homenet-babel-profile: references

"STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com> Mon, 20 November 2017 11:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bs7652@att.com>
X-Original-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: homenet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F8712954C for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:24:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.401
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sz_fIrcXXegS for <homenet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 303AD127010 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 03:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0083689.ppops.net []) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. ( with SMTP id vAKBFrJ1023946 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:24:51 -0500
Received: from alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp6.sbc.com []) by m0083689.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 2ebnw1j0k7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:24:51 -0500
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost []) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAKBOoAd019886 for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:24:50 -0500
Received: from alpi134.aldc.att.com (alpi134.aldc.att.com []) by alpi154.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vAKBOg90019811 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:24:43 -0500
Received: from GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com (GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.itservices.sbc.com []) by alpi134.aldc.att.com (RSA Interceptor) for <homenet@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:24:22 GMT
Received: from GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com ([]) by GAALPA1MSGHUBAD.ITServices.sbc.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0361.001; Mon, 20 Nov 2017 06:24:21 -0500
From: "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
To: "homenet@ietf.org" <homenet@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: homenet-babel-profile: references
Thread-Index: AdNgqpfbFCL3+zwAR6KaEH8jIb8Pig==
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:24:21 +0000
Message-ID: <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6114DCBB53D@GAALPA1MSGUSRBF.ITServices.sbc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-11-20_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1709140000 definitions=main-1711200155
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/homenet/vofMbIPwEBWpchJnj_c7lKGRETY>
Subject: [homenet] homenet-babel-profile: references
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: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:24:53 -0000

Here is a set of comments related just to references in homenet-babel-profile.

The first 4 references to the "Babel routing protocol" spec are to [RFC6126bis]. All subsequent mentions are to RFC 6126. RFC 6126 is not included as a reference in the References section. I find this disconcerting, and don't understand why requirements are against 6126 while introductory paragraphs proclaim 6126bis to be the protocol spec.

Since 6126bis is expected to obsolete 6126, I think it would be best to pick one of these two and consistently reference just the one. If we expect 6126bis to continue without issues through its WGLC and beyond (so it is roughly on the same timeline for completion), then 6126bis would probably be the better choice. The two docs could get assigned neighboring numbers. But if we want to prevent the 6126bis timeline from creating a publication dependency for homenet-babel-profile, then we could just stick with 6126. When 6126bis obsoletes 6126, any reference to 6126 will automatically be understood as then being to 6126bis. Since this draft is proposed as Experimental, I suspect either would be ok, but leave it to those more knowledgeable than I to say for sure.

If 6126bis, then I suggest changing the reference name from [RFC6126bis] to something like [BABEL-PROTOCOL]. Then replace all cases of "RFC 6126" with [BABEL-PROTOCOL]. And the one instance of "RFC 6126 Babel" would also become [BABEL-PROTOCOL].

If 6126, then change the reference to RFC 6126. It can be named either [BABEL-PROTOCOL] or [RFC6126]. Replace all instances of "RFC 6126bis", "[RFC6126bis]", "RFC 6126" as appropriate. If 6126, do you also need a mention of RFC 7557 somewhere?

If you choose to go with a friendly name for the 6126(bis) reference, consider also friendly-naming RFC 7788 to something like [HNCP] and RFC 7298 to [BABEL-HMAC]. 

Since babel-source-specific is normative and not yet published, it will hold up publication of this doc. In which case waiting for 6126bis may not  be an issue, since 6126bis appears to be timewise ahead of babel-source-specific.
draft-chouasne-babel-tos-specific-00 may also cause issues, even though it is just informational. You may want to consider removing the reference so it doesn't create issues.