Subject: [babel] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 20:33:46 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for an easy read.  I have only some minor comments:

— Section 5.2 —
Please expand “AE” on first use.  You should also do the same in Section 4.1.4
of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis.

   A node MUST NOT send
   a wildcard retraction with an attached source prefix, and a node that
   receives a wildcard retraction with a source prefix MUST ignore it.

The “it” here is ambiguous: please specify “MUST ignore the source prefix” or
“MUST ignore the retraction”.  The same comment applies also to the subsequent
paragraph.

— Section 6.1 —
For what it’s worth, I don’t find the diagram to add anything to the text, and
I wouldn’t have a clue what the diagram was trying to say without the text.

   Packets
   destined to D but not sourced in S will be forwarded by A to B, and
   by B to A, causing a persistent routing loop

That text is describing not what will happen with this standard, but what
*would* happen if this standard didn’t correct for it.  So please change “will
be forwarded” to”would be forwarded”, or perhaps “would then be forwarded”. 
And in the previous sentence, change “merely ignores” to “merely ignored”. 
These make it clearer that they’re talking about a hypothetical situation
that’s counter to what’s specified herein.