Subject: Re: [babel] Expiration impending: <draft-ietf-babel-applicability-00.txt>

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 11:20:45 -0500

Suggested changes to fix nits in this draft:

All drafts must have a Security Considerations section and an IANA
Considerations section. The traditional thing to put in the IANA
Considerations section if there are none is:

This document requires no IANA actions. RFC Editor: Please remove this
section before publication.

Security Considerations section could possible mention the importance of
securing routing, relative hostility of different use environments, have a
pointer to RFC 7298, or the like...

The References need to be labeled as Informational or Normative. While you
can have normative references in Informational documents, in this case it
seems OK to just change the name of the References section to
"Informational References".

Square bracketed references are not allowed in the Abstract so "Babel
[RFC6126]" needs to change to something like "Babel (see RFC 6162)".

Some references need to be updated. draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric has
been published as RFC 7779, draft-savage-eigrp has been published as RFC
7868. There are also two draft referenced by specific version number where
subsequent versions have come out. I suggest just dropping the version
number: draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-13 and draft-clausen-lln-loadng-14.

I'll check with my co-chair but I think with the above minor fixed, we
could probably do a WG Last Call on a revision of the draft.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:42 AM, IETF Secretariat <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> The following draft will expire soon:
>
> Name:     draft-ietf-babel-applicability
> Title:    Applicability of the Babel routing protocol
> State:    I-D Exists
> Expires:  2017-01-09 (in 6 days, 19 hours)
>
>

---

From: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 11:24:46 -0500

> I'll check with my co-chair but I think with the above minor fixed, we could
> probably do a WG Last Call on a revision of the draft.

I would agree. 

:-)

Russ

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:33:38 +0100

Thanks for the detailed comments, Donald.  Will get down to work ASAP.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2017 01:05:11 +0100

> pointer to RFC 7298, or the like...

   <section title="Security Considerations">

   <t>As in all distance-vector routing protocols, a Babel speaker receives
   reachability information from its neighbours, which by default is trusted.
   A number of attacks are possible if this information is not suitably
   protected, either by a lower-layer mechanism or by an extension to the
   protocol itself (e.g.&nbsp;<xref target="RFC7298"/>).</t>

   <t>Implementors and deployers must be aware of the insecure nature of the
   base protocol, and must take suitable measures to ensure that the protocol
   is deployed as securely as required by the application.</t>

I've just pushed my changes to Github.  I'll sleep over it, do some
proof-reading tomorrow, and if there are no further nits on the list, I'll
submit version -01.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 16:39:20 +0100

> There are also two draft referenced by specific version number where
> subsequent versions have come out. I suggest just dropping the version number:

Donald, I've allowed myself not to follow this suggestion, since I like
references to be dated and versioned -- it avoids misunderstandings when
something was added in a later version.  I hope that's okay with you.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 10:41:14 -0500

Hi Juliusz,

> something was added in a later version.  I hope that's okay with you.

That's fine with me. I was just trying to make a little less work for
the draft authors.

Thanks,
Donald