Subject: [babel] Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Martin Duke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:09:05 -0700

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-19: 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-rfc6126bis/

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

One nit:

3.7.2 In the last paragraph, selection of a next hop is listed as both a "MAY"
and a "SHOULD NOT". I suppose that this not logically inconsistent, but the
context certainly suggests that's both significant and minor, which doesn't
make sense.

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 22:34:52 +0200

> and a "SHOULD NOT".

Hmm.  What this paragraph is meant to say is that it MAY send an update
when the metric changes, including due to a new next hop being selected,
but it SHOULD NOT if the next hop changes without causing a significant
change in the metric.

I'll try to make it clearer.

-- Juliusz