Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04.txt
Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> Fri, 05 January 2018 18:19 UTC
Return-Path: <jch@irif.fr>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B019D12D77B for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:19:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 5OiEQKATmcfG for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from korolev.univ-paris7.fr (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [IPv6:2001:660:3301:8000::1:2]) (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 44CEA129C6E for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [81.194.30.253]) by korolev.univ-paris7.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4/relay1/75695) with ESMTP id w05IJcFP019709; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:19:38 +0100
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2A8EB5DE; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:19:38 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at math.univ-paris-diderot.fr
Received: from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id E-FEEX1o68zv; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:19:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from trurl.irif.fr (dra38-1-82-225-44-56.fbx.proxad.net [82.225.44.56]) (Authenticated sender: jch) by mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 04574EB5D2; Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:19:34 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:19:37 +0100
Message-ID: <87incg183q.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
To: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, dschinazi@apple.com, akatlas@gmail.com, 'Donald Eastlake' <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, russ@riw.us
In-Reply-To: <00a801d3850a$e4eb7640$aec262c0$@ndzh.com>
References: <00a801d3850a$e4eb7640$aec262c0$@ndzh.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (korolev.univ-paris7.fr [194.254.61.138]); Fri, 05 Jan 2018 19:19:39 +0100 (CET)
X-Miltered: at korolev with ID 5A4FC1BA.002 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)!
X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 5A4FC1BA.002 from mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/null/mailhub.math.univ-paris-diderot.fr/<jch@irif.fr>
X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 5A4FC1BA.002 on korolev.univ-paris7.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.000 -> S=0.000
X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/u02IiQ-6GLuGpsF_kJoYd-N4Id4>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04.txt
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 18:19:45 -0000
Dear Susan, Thank you very much for the kind words, and thank you for your review. Unfortunately, I cannot help but be somewhat puzzled. As it currently stands, your review is not likely to help us improve the document. If I read your review right, it consists of three parts. In a first part, you comment about the lack of discussion of management. Rfc6126bis has a very precise scope: it defines the on-the-wire protocol and associated algorithms in a way that is sufficiently precise to enable independent reimplementation of the protocol in an interoperable way without overly restricting implementers' freedom. It has arguably been successful with this goal: there are currently three independent, interoperable implementations of RFC 6126, at least two of which have been independently updated to comply with rfc6126bis. The Babel community has done a significant amount of work on management of Babel networks in a wide range of very different environments, some of it within the IETF, some of it outside, some of it publicly available, some of it proprietary. I would be interested in discussing Babel management issues with you and Barbara in a separate mail exchange, or even on the mailing list. However, management issues are out of scope for rfc6126bis, which deals with the on-the-wire protocol only. Hence, your comments about management in your review of rfc6126bis are somewhat puzzling to me, and do not help us improve the document. In a second part, you comment about Section 2, the conceptual overview of the protocol, and mention that it is incomplete. I have re-read this part carefully, and I think that it is perfectly clear that this part is not meant to be exhaustive; for what it's worth, none of people independently reimplementing Babel have been confused by that. (As a matter of fact, you missed the most important simplification that's done in that section -- we use a mesh model there, rather than the more complicated but more realistic link model used on the Internet and hence used by the protocol description in Section 3.) I think that it is important that Section 2 remains concise and readable. Hence, I disagree with your comments about triggerred updates or technical details of the packet format needing to be described in Section 2. Doing that would not improve the document. In a third part of your review, you make a fairly large number of comments about particular issues you have with this document. Unfortunately, your comments range from incomplete ("but I am not sure you’ve caught all the problems") through cryptic ("however the details are not there") to somewhat enigmatic ("there is no list in the beginning on what algorithms"). While we can guess in many cases what you mean, I don't think that this list is precise enough for us to work with in order to improve rfc6126bis. Dear Susan, I realise that you are a busy person. However, I would like to strongly encourage you to send us another review, one that fits the scope of rfc6126bis and is precise and detailed enough to help us improve the document. Thank you very much for your help, -- Juliusz
- [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-babel-r… Susan Hares
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Susan Hares
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Susan Hares
- [RTG-DIR] About Babel management [was: RTG-DIR QA… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RTG-DIR QA review of draft-ietf-bab… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… Susan Hares
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [RTG-DIR] [babel] About Babel management [was… Alexander Vainshtein