Subject: [babel] My understanding of the current consensus

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 02:58:14 +0200

This mail is meant to reflect WG consensus.  Please yell if you disagree
about anything.

1. Mandatory sub-TLVs are consensual.  No problem here, we can implement
   straight away.

2. Unicast Hellos look good, but we're having a meeting on Wednesday where
   we decide what to do about them.  I'll summarise when we're done.

3. We don't bump the version number -- there's clear WG consensus that we
   stay at version 2 of the protocol, notwithstanding the incompatibilities.
   We have a good understanding of the issues, I think a new appendix
   about backwards compatibility might be a good idea.

4. The changes to route acquisition and hold time look sane, we keep them
   unless we find a fatal flaw during implementation.

5. Wildcard requests cause a full dump, no further complexity is desired.
   Matthieu and Gwendoline update their drafts to reflect that.  We try to
   get Matthieu's draft adopted, we let Gwendoline's draft stay at the
   individual submission level for now.

6. Sandy's draft looks good, but we don't adopt it for now.  Three important
   issues:

  - do we want sub-sub-TLVs?
  - there's no implementation of the data plane.
  - the git repository is a code dump, which makes it difficult to work
    out the exact changes.  Sandy MUST fix that, which should be easy
    enough given that she knows the exact version she forked from.

7. We don't adopt RTT routing for now, we wait for the pipeline to clear.

8. Barbara's draft looks good.

9. No decision has been made about authorship of rfc6126bis.  Since Czech
   beer is good and cheap, I accept bribes, but don't make it a habit ;-)

10. The working group is friendly and productive, I'm having a lot of fun
    working with you all.

Please comment if you disagree, even if you're not sure of yourself.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Zhang Z <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:06:43 +0000

Hi Juliusz,

Thanks for your comments. Please see inline.

  - do we want sub-sub-TLVs?
[Sandy] The sub-sub-TLVs defined in this draft is aligned with the definition in OSPF/ISIS/BGP draft. Though there is no sub-sub-TLV definition in Babel protocol now, it can still be conveyed by BIER sub-TLV as payload. In this situation the sub-sub-TLV need not be assigned type. It is just coding restriction. It will be great that you decide to add sub-sub-TLV in Babel protocol. :)

  - there's no implementation of the data plane.
[Sandy] This draft only defines the control plane, so the data plane is out of the scope of this draft as well as Babel protocol. In fact BIER has been implemented by several vendors though there is no open coding for BIER data plane for the time being. The coding runs in PC will be implemented in the future. But I think it is not necessary for this draft as well as Babel protocol. And I think it should not stop the process of this draft.

  - the git repository is a code dump, which makes it difficult to work
    out the exact changes.  Sandy MUST fix that, which should be easy
    enough given that she knows the exact version she forked from.
[Sandy] It is testing code based on the first link that you post in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/eDggzT8l7BhlPKj3OX2_cnTZlSg/?qid=df58d2f6d38315765672f95bf6cd4a8c
It is a testing code to verify the feasibility of this draft. In case you have other requirement about it we can discuss to improve it or move it.

Thanks,
Sandy

________________________________
发件人: babel <[email-masked]> 代表 Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
发送时间: 2017年7月18日 8:58
收件人: [email-masked]
主题: [babel] My understanding of the current consensus

-- Juliusz

_______________________________________________
babel mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel
babel Info Page - Internet Engineering Task Force<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>
www.ietf.org
This list was formed to discuss the possibility of standardizing the Babel Routing Protocol within the IETF. To see the collection of prior postings to the list ...

---

From: Matthieu Boutier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:18:04 +0200

> 3. We don't bump the version number -- there's clear WG consensus that
>    we stay at version 2 of the protocol

I believe the consensus was "do not request to implement multiple
versions".

Another option is to pass the whole protocol to version 3.  You might
then write an appendix for people willing to support both versions and
avoid breaking the network of their customers.

> 5. We try to get Matthieu's draft adopted

What's the process for this?  Should I submit the next version as [1]?
When did we define the sub-TLV type?  It would be good to set it as soon
as possible such that the implementations can reflect it.  Is there
consensus for 128?

[1] draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-00

> 10. The working group is friendly and productive, I'm having a lot of
>     fun working with you all.

Shared opinion, thanks to all ! :-)

Matthieu

---

From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:54:04 +0200

> What's the process for this?  Should I submit the next version as [1]?

You change your draft to reflect "full dump", add IANA Considerations, fix
any remaining issues, then submit the new version as soon as done.

> When did we define the sub-TLV type?

In IANA Considerations.

> It would be good to set it as soon as possible such that the
> implementations can reflect it.  Is there consensus for 128?

Donald will correct me, but I believe that's up to IANA.

-- Juliusz

---

From: Matthieu Boutier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:32:01 +0200

> [Sandy] The sub-sub-TLVs defined in this draft is aligned with the definition in OSPF/ISIS/BGP draft.

That may be a point: having different specs quite similar. (I'm not
expressing an opinion, just a thought)

> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/eDggzT8l7BhlPKj3OX2_cnTZlSg/?qid=df58d2f6d38315765672f95bf6cd4a8c

-> https://github.com/boutier/babeld/tree/dev

It's the dev branch of my repository... The official babeld repository is
on the Juliusz github: https://github.com/jech/babeld.

Second, the email you mentioned was sent the 24th of May, and my dev
branch is subject to all terrible things which exist in git, especially
rebase + push --force.

Anyway, I found out on which commit you make your branch.  It was rebased,
so to make it easy to all to see your changes, I've create a bier branch
in my repository and pushed your code.  Of course, your authorship is
kept. About this, please configure git such that your proper names and
email address will be used in your future commits.

    https://github.com/boutier/babeld/tree/bier

For a fresh and clean restart, I would recommend you to remove and
recreate your github repository, and continue with this branch. (note
that if you have questions and while we're at IETF, you can grab me the
corridor.)

However, you might want to branch bier over the Juliusz's babeld.  It's
up to you.  :-)

Matthieu

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:55:36 -0400

Hi Matthieu,

> any remaining issues, then submit the new version as soon as done.

Good to do that and submit a revision of the personal draft.

While there are various processes possible, best will be for the
chairs to issue a call for adoption on the mailing list and, if there
is general agreement, declare the draft adopted. We can then authorize
the WG -00 draft posting.

> Donald will correct me, but I believe that's up to IANA.

Well, it would be simply up to IANA if the current registry was being
used without change but it is a bit more complex since this is in
conjunction with tweaking the registry to have mandatory and
non-manditory type ranges.

Probably ideal for now in IANA Considerations to say something like
"IANA is requested to allocate TBD, a BABEL sub-TLV type from the
range reserved for mandatory sub-TLVs [value 128 suggested]." And then
use "TBD [128]" elsewhere in the draft

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

---

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:09:26 +0200

> This mail is meant to reflect WG consensus.  Please yell if you disagree

This corresponds pretty well to my understanding :)

-Toke

---

From: Zhang Z <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 09:12:08 +0000

Hi Matthieu,

Thanks for your branch. I get the code from your branch because the extensions you did looks good to me and I can follow it easily. I am sure I can upload the code to your branch as well as Juliusz's branch. Maybe there are some changs in it but I think it will not be a big problem. :)

Thanks,
Sandy

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Matthieu Boutier <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:32:01 AM
To: Zhang Z
Cc: Juliusz Chroboczek; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [babel] My understanding of the current consensus

Matthieu