Last Call Review of draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05
review-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05-genart-lc-bryant-2018-02-20-00

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-homenet-babel-profile-05
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2018-02-20
IETF LC End Date: 2018-02-26
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This is understandable, and close to completion. There are a few minor
points that need attention, and couple of major points that may just need
clarification.

Major issues:

 In addition,
      if implementations use conflicting route selection policies,
      persistent oscillations might occur.
SB> Is this consistent with the statement earlier in the para that
SB> " Distinct
SB>   implementations of RFC 6126bis Babel will interoperate, in the
SB>   sense that they will maintain a set of loop-free forwarding paths"?

=======

 Since IPv6 has some
      features that make implementations somewhat simpler and more
      reliable (notably link-local addresses), we require carrying
      control data over IPv6.
SB> Earlier you said that IPv4 also had Link Local addresses, so how
SB> can link local addresses be the deciding selection criteria? Is there
SB> something technically better about IPv6 LL?

Minor issues:

      Rationale: support for wireless transit links is a "killer
      feature" of Homenet, something that is requested by our users and
      easy to explain to our bosses.  In the absence of dynamically

SB> Not sure explicability to your boss counts for much as a basis for
SB> a feature an international standard.

======

Nits/editorial comments:

Abstract

   This document defines the subset of the Babel routing protocol and
   its extensions that a Homenet router must implement, as well as the
   interactions between HNCP and Babel.

SB> HNCP needs to be expanded
SB> Both need a reference, but the reference needs to be expanded
SB> i.e. RFC7788 not [RFC7788]

=====

   The core of the Homenet protocol suite consists of HNCP [RFC7788], a
SB> HNCP needs to be expanded on first use

=====