Subject: [babel] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-information-model-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2020 13:41:57 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-information-model-11: 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-information-model/

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

I want to revisit the question about including support for source-specific
routing in the Information model.

This topic came up already, but the discussion focused only on whether
source-specific routing needed to be enabled or not, with one implementor
mentioning that their implementation required it [1].

In addition to enabling the functionality, and because "most of the
information model is focused on reporting Babel protocol operational state"
(§1), I am interested in the reporting side.  It seems to me that the
incremental cost to add this support is trivial (as described in
§3/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific: "Data Structures").

Why is source-specific routing not supported?  I find it to be a significant
omission, especially considering that the source-specific routing spec is in
IESG Evaluation at the same time.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/F7tlCQk8IeTaHN_rKHbsoKF3urE/