Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07

From: Bernie Volz via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 10:20:25 -0800

Reviewer: Bernie Volz
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07.
These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
details on the INT Directorate, see
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/.

Based on my review, the document IS ready to go to IETF Last Call and therefore
can be forwarded to the IESG.

The following are some nits:

In Abstract and Introduction, the "updates RFC 8966" is really that it extends
RFC 8966 as this adds additional capabilities ("defines extensions"). This is
probably a minor nit, but someone may be looking for explicit that "fixes"
issues in RFC 8966 when there is really none and an implementation that adheres
to RFC 8966 can continue to function as it has before. I also know that this is
an open issue within the IETF as there aren't clear tags to distinguish these
kinds of changes.

For section 2, I wonder whether "the fame format as the existing AE for IPv4
addresses" would benefit by calling that AE value (1) out (as is done in other
places?

Section 2.3 says "Prefix and seqno requests" but RFC8966 does not appear to
have a "Prefix request"? I think this should be "Route"?

For section 3 (last paragraph), does this imply that if the router has
127.0.0.1 assigned it can be used for ICMPv4 packets? Or is this not common for
routers?

For section 4.2.2, would changing the title from "Other TLVs" to just "Route
Request and Seqno Request" be useful (as these are the only other TLVs). And,
would a reference back to section 2.3 be useful (as use of AE value 4 is SHOULD
NOT).

For 6, this is usually a request to IANA to update - the RFC editor would
change it to indicate the allocated value? (Minor as it could only be an issue
if there were multiple documents trying to assign value 4.)

Thanks.

- Bernie Volz

---

From: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 23:10:39 +0000

Bernie

Thank you for this careful review for the Internet directorate. Pretty much appreciated !

-éric

On 27/01/2022, 19:21, "Int-dir on behalf of Bernie Volz via Datatracker" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Reviewer: Bernie Volz

    Thanks.

    - Bernie Volz

    _______________________________________________
    Int-dir mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir