Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06

Request Review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2020-10-27
Requested 2020-10-13
Requested by Martin Vigoureux
Authors Matthieu Boutier , Juliusz Chroboczek
I-D last updated 2020-10-27
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)
Assignment Reviewer He Jia
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-babel-source-specific by Routing Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 06 (document currently at 08)
Result Has issues
Completed 2020-10-27

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The
Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as
they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special
request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs.
For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would
be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call
comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by
updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06.txt
Reviewer: Jia He
Review Date: Oct. 27, 2020
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track


This document is basically ready for publication, but I have one minor concern
that I think should be considered before publication.


The draft is clearly writtern and easy to understand. It describes the
extensions to the Babel routing protocol to support source-specific routing.

Major Issues:

No major issues found.

Minor Issues:

In Paragraph 5, it is written as

"In the original protocol, three TLVs carry a destination prefix:
   Updates, Route Requests and Seqno Requests.  This specification
   extends these messages to optionally carry a Source Prefix sub-TLV,
   as described in Section 7 below.  The sub-TLV is marked as mandatory,
   so that an unextended implementation will silently ignore the whole
   enclosing TLV. "

I understand the the Source Prefix sub-TLV is mandatory to support the
functions defined in this specification.  However, "optionally" used in the
paragraph above is confusing. One suggestion is to simply delete "optionally"
in the sentence.