> I do have some non-blocking comments:
Thank you very much, Alvaro.
> (1) I think that this document walks a fine line when Normatively
> referring to Appendix A in rfc6126bis given that it is an informative
> appendix.
Fixed to use non-normative language, as you suggested.
> (2) This reminds me; please use rfc8174 template (for Normative language).
Done, sorry.
> (3) The Non-requirements sections (2.2/3.2) are confusing to me. Maybe it's
> the "negative logic"...
I've renamed "non-requirements" to "optional features" -- NR1 is now OPT1.
> NR2, for example, is worded as a requirement that was considered, and
> the rationale explains why not: an "implementation of Babel MAY include
> support for other extensions"
s/MAY/may/
> (3.3.1) NR3 -- The text says that the requirement not considered
> (non-requirement) is such that "an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv6
> prefix delegation MAY announce a non-specific IPv6 default route", but
> the rationale says that "announcing an additional non-specific route is
> allowed". I'm confused. Is announcing the additional route ok, or not?
> Is it ok to assume that optionally advertising the additional route is
> ok? If it's allowed, then why is this a non-requirement?
This is hopefully clear now -- announcing the non-specific route is an
optional feature.
> (3.3.2) For NR4, is the non-requirement, i.e. one that was not
> considered, that the source-specific route SHOULD NOT be announced?
> This piece is also confusing to me because the rationale says (at least
> the way I read it) that it may be ok to advertise. It seems to me that
> the text is saying that in fact the route SHOULD NOT (or even MUST NOT
> be announced)...which brings me to the question: what is the requirement
> that was not considered? What am I missing?
I've re-read the section, and I think I'm going to leave the current
wording. The intent is:
- we don't recommend you do it, since it makes your network more
complex with no benefits we can see;
- however, it won't break your network, so if you've got a good reason
we didn't foresee, it's not forbidden.
It is my understanding that this fits pretty well the meaning of SHOULD
NOT.
-- Juliusz
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
