Subject: [homenet] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-06

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 10:55:36 -0800

Reviewer: Tim Chown
Review result: Has Nits

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should
treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This draft specifies the subset of the Babel protocol and its extensions that
is required by an implementation of the Homenet protocol suite, as well as the
interactions between Babel and HNCP.

This draft reads well, is clearly written, and includes good, concise
rationales for the stated requirements.

The draft is Ready for publication, with minor Nits.

I only have two minor comments:

Abstract:
------------

You say "This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and its
extensions that a Homenet router must implement"

but the REQs are a mix of MUST and SHOULDs, not "musts", so perhaps use the
sentence in paragraph two of Section 1, i.e.:

"This document specifies the exact subset of the Babel protocol and its
extensions that is required by an implementation of the Homenet protocol suite."

Section 2.1
----------------

REQ1: IPv4 also has "link local" addresses, under 169.254.0.0/16, as per RFC
3927, so perhaps here make it clearer why IPv6 link locals make implementations
simpler and more reliable (or why IPv4 link locals do not).  I know what you
mean, but given the document defines IPv4 and IPv6 requirements, a little extra
clarity here might be useful.