Subject: Re: [babel] [Int-dir] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 15:55:56 +0000

Bernie

As you may have notice, I have used your review in my IESG ballot for this draft:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/JtbOceU9GwL6WbofPAv4vppVIQE/

Thank you again for the review, it provides another pair of eyes on this document.

Regards,

-éric

On 27/01/2022, 19:21, "Int-dir on behalf of Bernie Volz via Datatracker" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Reviewer: Bernie Volz
    Review result: Ready with Nits

    I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07.
    These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
    Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
    like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
    them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
    details on the INT Directorate, see
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.

    Based on my review, the document IS ready to go to IETF Last Call and therefore
    can be forwarded to the IESG.

    The following are some nits:

    In Abstract and Introduction, the "updates RFC 8966" is really that it extends
    RFC 8966 as this adds additional capabilities ("defines extensions"). This is
    probably a minor nit, but someone may be looking for explicit that "fixes"
    issues in RFC 8966 when there is really none and an implementation that adheres
    to RFC 8966 can continue to function as it has before. I also know that this is
    an open issue within the IETF as there aren't clear tags to distinguish these
    kinds of changes.

    For section 2, I wonder whether "the fame format as the existing AE for IPv4
    addresses" would benefit by calling that AE value (1) out (as is done in other
    places?

    Section 2.3 says "Prefix and seqno requests" but RFC8966 does not appear to
    have a "Prefix request"? I think this should be "Route"?

    For section 3 (last paragraph), does this imply that if the router has
    127.0.0.1 assigned it can be used for ICMPv4 packets? Or is this not common for
    routers?

    For section 4.2.2, would changing the title from "Other TLVs" to just "Route
    Request and Seqno Request" be useful (as these are the only other TLVs). And,
    would a reference back to section 2.3 be useful (as use of AE value 4 is SHOULD
    NOT).

    For 6, this is usually a request to IANA to update - the RFC editor would
    change it to indicate the allocated value? (Minor as it could only be an issue
    if there were multiple documents trying to assign value 4.)

    Thanks.

    - Bernie Volz

    _______________________________________________
    Int-dir mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:33:37 +0100

> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07.

Thanks for your review, Bernie.

> In Abstract and Introduction, the "updates RFC 8966"

The document is now Experimental, so I'm not sure whether it can update
a Standards Track document.  I've removed the Updates.

> I also know that this is an open issue within the IETF as there aren't
> clear tags to distinguish these kinds of changes.

Yes, and I suspect my position on the issue is not quite aligned with yours.

> addresses" would benefit by calling that AE value (1) out (as is done in other

Done.

> have a "Prefix request"? I think this should be "Route"?

Right, my bad.  Done.

> 127.0.0.1 assigned it can be used for ICMPv4 packets? Or is this not
> common for routers?

Good point.  Made it explicit.

> Request and Seqno Request" be useful (as these are the only other TLVs).

Done.

> And, would a reference back to section 2.3 be useful (as use of AE value
> 4 is SHOULD NOT).

Done.

> if there were multiple documents trying to assign value 4.)

The registry has a policy "Expert Review", and the IANA has already made
the allocation (after a suitable Expert Review).

Thanks again for your review,

-- Juliusz