Last Call Review of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-10
review-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-10-genart-lc-housley-2019-06-22-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 17)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-07-04
Requested 2019-06-20
Authors Juliusz Chroboczek, David Schinazi
Draft last updated 2019-06-22
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 Russ Housley
State Completed
Review review-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-10-genart-lc-housley-2019-06-22
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/pJiQc-ZJP4n8ny-sLqf_FMoJElY
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 17)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2019-06-22

Review
review-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-10-genart-lc-housley-2019-06-22

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-10
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2019-06-22
IETF LC End Date: 2019-07-04
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

Summary: Ready with Nits

Major Concerns:

None


Minor Concerns:

None


Nits:

Section 3.7.2 says:

   ...  A node SHOULD NOT send triggered updates
   for other reasons, such as when there is a minor fluctuation in a
   route's metric, when the selected next hop changes, or to propagate a
   new sequence number (except to satisfy a request, as specified in
   Section 3.8).

This seem backwards to me.  Perhaps:

   ...  The node MUST send triggered updates to satisfy a request, as
   specified in Section 3.8; however, a node SHOULD NOT send
   triggered updates for other reasons, including a minor fluctuation
   in a metric for a route, the selected next hop changes, or to
   propagate a new sequence number.


Section 4 says:

   A Babel packet is sent as the body of a UDP datagram, with network-
   layer hop count set to 1, destined to a well-known multicast address
   or to a unicast address, over IPv4 or IPv6; in the case of IPv6,
   these addresses are link-local.
   
It seems to me that this should be reworded as MUST statements.

   A Babel packet MUST be sent as the body of a UDP datagram, with
   network-layer hop count set to 1, destined to a well-known multicast
   address or to a unicast address, over either IPv4 or IPv6.  When
   IPv6 addresses are used, the addresses MUST be link-local.


Section 4.1.2 says:

   A router-id is an arbitrary 8-octet value.  A router-id MUST NOT
   consist of either all zeroes or all ones.
   
I do not think you are referring to octets with a value of one.  I
think you mean that the router-id cannot be 0x0000000000000000 or
0xffffffffffffffff.  Please reword.