Skip to main content

Early Review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-01

Request Review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Early Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2017-11-30
Requested 2017-10-28
Requested by Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
Authors Matthieu Boutier , Juliusz Chroboczek
I-D last updated 2017-11-04
Completed reviews Rtgdir Early review of -01 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -06 by He Jia (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -06 by Dan Romascanu (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff)
QA review.
Assignment Reviewer Joel M. Halpern
State Completed
Request Early review on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 01 (document currently at 08)
Result Not ready
Completed 2017-11-04
This is a routing directorate early review.  It is intended to assist the
working group and the routing ADs in processing the advancing document.

This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Major: N/A

Please address the issues reported by id-nits.  Specifically, repair the
abstract and add an explicit reference to RFC 2119

Please add an informative reference to draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing
indicating the the routing policy described here aligns with the ongoing work
in the routing area for how to handle source specific routes.  This could be
added in section 4.

The base Babel (bis) specification does not talk about the handling of
duplicate sub-TLVs.  Are multiple source-specific sub-TLVs allowed on a given
destination prefix advertisement?  Please indicate what the intended /
permitted handling is in the text.

As far as I can tell, the behavior described in section 3.1 for 0/0 source
addresses and their relationship to routes without source addresses is correct
and matches draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing.  However, the wording is
sufficiently different as to cause this reader to wonder about it.  If
practical consider additional wording to make the alignment clear.  This would
seem to apply to 3.2 as well.  The most obvious fix is to say that a Babel node
supporting this extensions treats all advertisements received without a source
specific prefix as if they had the 0/0 source prefix?  (The text in section 5.2
says this.  I would like to see it in section 3.1)