Subject: Re: [homenet] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 16:17:07 +0200

> I do have some non-blocking comments:

Thank you very much, Alvaro.

> (1) I think that this document walks a fine line when Normatively
> referring to Appendix A in rfc6126bis given that it is an informative
> appendix.

Fixed to use non-normative language, as you suggested.

> (2) This reminds me; please use rfc8174 template (for Normative language).

Done, sorry.

> (3) The Non-requirements sections (2.2/3.2) are confusing to me.  Maybe it's
> the "negative logic"...

I've renamed "non-requirements" to "optional features" -- NR1 is now OPT1.

> NR2, for example, is worded as a requirement that was considered, and
> the rationale explains why not: an "implementation of Babel MAY include
> support for other extensions"

s/MAY/may/

> (3.3.1) NR3 -- The text says that the requirement not considered
> (non-requirement) is such that "an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv6
> prefix delegation MAY announce a non-specific IPv6 default route", but
> the rationale says that "announcing an additional non-specific route is
> allowed".  I'm confused.  Is announcing the additional route ok, or not?
> Is it ok to assume that optionally advertising the additional route is
> ok?  If it's allowed, then why is this a non-requirement?

This is hopefully clear now -- announcing the non-specific route is an
optional feature.

> (3.3.2) For NR4, is the non-requirement, i.e. one that was not
> considered, that the source-specific route SHOULD NOT be announced?
> This piece is also confusing to me because the rationale says (at least
> the way I read it) that it may be ok to advertise.  It seems to me that
> the text is saying that in fact the route SHOULD NOT (or even MUST NOT
> be announced)...which brings me to the question: what is the requirement
> that was not considered?  What am I missing?

I've re-read the section, and I think I'm going to leave the current
wording.  The intent is:

  - we don't recommend you do it, since it makes your network more
    complex with no benefits we can see;
  - however, it won't break your network, so if you've got a good reason
    we didn't foresee, it's not forbidden.

It is my understanding that this fits pretty well the meaning of SHOULD
NOT.

-- Juliusz