Subject: Re: [babel] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-03

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2021 14:42:40 +0200

> I've done a review of this draft as Shepherd. See below:

Sorry, Donald, I'd missed your review.  I've just submitted a -05 that
takes it into account.

> The introduction is generally quite good but, in the first paragraph,
> some wording feels just the slightest bit off.  For example, it appears
> to assume that ND or ARP would always be used when the next-hop to link-
> layer address mapping might be statically configured

The introduction has been rewritten.  While this section is non-normative,
and therefore doesn't constrain implementations from doing what you
suggest, I've added an instance of the word "typically" as a concession to
implementations that migh do what you suggest.

> Globally TDB -> 4

Done.

> REFERENCES
> 
> Update reference to RFC 5549 to RFC 8950.

Most respectfully disagree.  The reference is used in the following
sentence:

    The extension described in this document is inspired by a previously
    defined extension to the BGP protocol <xref target="RFC5549"/>.

It is important to cite the older reference in order to give proper credit
and be clear who got there first.

> Section 2, 1st line: It is more common in IETF documents to say
> "dual-stack" rather than "double-stack".

Done.

> anoncing -> announcing

Done.

> annoucements -> announcements

Done.

> administatoris -> administrators

Done.

> next hop -> next-hop   (7 times)

Thanks.  I've checked that I consistently use "next hop" when it is a noun
and "next-hop" when it is used as an adjective.  This is consistent with
RFC 8966.

> eg. -> e.g.   (twice)

Done.

> It would be preferable, within the Normative and the Informative
> References, that RFCs be listed in numeric order.

In the XML?  The plain-text version is being sorted by xml2rfc, so if
there's any issue, it's a bug in xml2rfc.

> I notice this draft generally uses British spelling. I think that's OK
> as long as it is consistent.

This is consistent with RFC 8966.

Thanks,

-- Juliusz

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 10:09:09 -0400

Hi Juliusz,

Latest version looks good. See below:

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 8:42 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]> wrote:
> implementations that might do what you suggest.
>
> > Globally TDB -> 4
>
> Done.
>
> > REFERENCES
> >

That makes sense. But I suspect other reviewers may trip over the same thing.

> and "next-hop" when it is used as an adjective.  This is consistent with

OK

> there's any issue, it's a bug in xml2rfc.

Ahhh, I was too quick and didn't look closely enough! The informative
references are in numeric order, including RFC 0826. But the normative
references have an RFC 792 :-) which got sorted after RFC 2119.
Obviously too minor to bother with now but I suggest that in some
future revision you change that to RFC 0792.

I'll go ahead and do the PROTO write-up and request RFC publication.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 22:21:41 -0400

Hi,

One more thing I had overlooked: If a draft obsoletes or updates an RFC,
this needs to be mentioned in the Abstract and Introduction. The header
information on the title page says this document updates RFC 8966. But the
Abstract and the body of the draft pretty consistently say that it
"extends" the Babel protocol. Generally, the IESG has been getting stricter
about the use of "updates" although it does not have unanimous agreement on
whether or not "updates" can be used when a draft extends a protocol.

I think the simplest thing would be to remove the "Updates: 8966" header
from the first page.

Thanks,
Donald

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 14:09:20 +0200

> I think the simplest thing would be to remove the "Updates: 8966" header from
> the first page.

If that's okay with you, I'd rather add the mention.  It's useful to be
able to see related drafts on the datatracker.

(IMHO, there should be a "Relates-to" relation for RFCs, to make the
datatracker more useful.)

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 11:38:45 -0400

Hi Juliusz,

> able to see related drafts on the datatracker.

OK, then you need to add something like "This document updates RFC
8966." to the Abstract, probably at the end, and "This document
updates [RFC8966]." somewhere in the Introduction.

> datatracker more useful.)

You are not alone in believing that the "Updates" header should be
augmented by the availability of something like an "Extends" header. I
think a "Relates-to" header is a bit too vague and judgemental. But
this issue has been around for years now so I wouldn't expect a change
any time soon.

Thanks,
Donald