Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:33:37 +0100

> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07.

Thanks for your review, Bernie.

> In Abstract and Introduction, the "updates RFC 8966"

The document is now Experimental, so I'm not sure whether it can update
a Standards Track document.  I've removed the Updates.

> I also know that this is an open issue within the IETF as there aren't
> clear tags to distinguish these kinds of changes.

Yes, and I suspect my position on the issue is not quite aligned with yours.

> 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?

Done.

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

Right, my bad.  Done.

> 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?

Good point.  Made it explicit.

> 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).

Done.

> And, would a reference back to section 2.3 be useful (as use of AE value
> 4 is SHOULD NOT).

Done.

> 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.)

The registry has a policy "Expert Review", and the IANA has already made
the allocation (after a suitable Expert Review).

Thanks again for your review,

-- Juliusz