Early Review of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04
review-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04-opsdir-early-ersue-2018-04-20-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Early Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2018-04-16
Requested 2018-03-21
Requested by Alia Atlas
Authors Juliusz Chroboczek, David Schinazi
Draft last updated 2018-04-20
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Susan Hares (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -04 by Mehmet Ersue (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -04 by Nicolai Leymann (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -10 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -11 by Yingzhen Qu (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Mehmet Ersue
State Completed
Review review-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04-opsdir-early-ersue-2018-04-20
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 17)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2018-04-20

Review
review-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-04-opsdir-early-ersue-2018-04-20

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. 

Intended status: Standards Track
Current IESG state: ID exists 
Obsoletes: 6126,7557

Summary: 
The document defines the Babel Routing Protocol originally defined in experimental RFCs 6116 and 7557. 

The abstract in this draft is a copy from the abstract of RFC 6116 and is a generic statement on "Babel". IMO the abstract should state explicitly that this draft defines the "Babel Routing Protocol" and replaces/obsoletes the RFCs 6116 and 7557. 

There are following additional nits in the document:
== There are 1 instance of lines with multicast IPv4 addresses in the document.  If these are generic example addresses, they should be changed to use the 233.252.0.x range defined in RFC 5771
== The document seems to use 'NOT RECOMMENDED' as an RFC 2119 keyword, but does not include the phrase in its RFC 2119 key words list.
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5226 (Obsoleted by RFC 8126)

IANA Considerations have to be reviewwed from IANA.
Security Considerations should refer to the discussion in RFC 6126.

The document does not cause any issues related to operations and management.

Regards,
Mehmet