Subject: [babel] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07: (with COMMENT)

From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:44:59 -0800

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6/

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

Thanks for this highly readable and useful document.

Regarding the distaste for the dummy 192.0.0.8 address, it seems to me that
this is a case of perfect as the enemy of good. A conflict-averse pragmatist,
foreseeing the objection, might simply have left Section 3 out of the document.
I don’t think that would have been a better outcome. I note furthermore that
the 192.0.0.8 mechanism isn’t even being specified here — it’s specced in RFC
7600, and is just offered as an implementation option here.

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 18:38:18 +0100

> I don’t think that would have been a better outcome.

Thanks for the kind words.  To be fair, credit is due to Margaret Cullen,
who first pointed out the issue to us.

-- Juliusz