Hello Éric, and thanks for your review.
We'll address the rest of your review promptly, for now please let me
answer your point about the intended status.
> ### Intended publication status
>
> It seems to me that it is rather an informational document than a proposed
> standard as this I-D does not specify anything but merely describe how
> existing
> implementations can be used.
The very reason this draft exists is that we need a document describing
v4-via-v6 that can be normatively cited in Standards Track documents. The
lack of such a document is the reason why we had to downgrade RFC 9229 to
Experimental, even though the protocol extension described therein has
been deployed in production for years.
This leaves us with either Standards Track or BCP. The reason we have
chosen Standards Track is this sentence in Section 4:
If a router does not have any IPv4 addresses assigned, the router MUST
use the dummy address 192.0.0.8 as the source address of outgoing ICMP
packets
This behaviour has been discussed in the Babel working group, and the WG
came to the following conclusions:
1. the source address of the ICMP packets cannot depend on the routing
protocol: when a router needs to send a destination unreachable
error, then it has no way to determine whether it's an OSPF or an
IS-IS route that's missing;
2. it is best to agree early on a single dummy address that is used
across implementations, since it simplifies both operations and the
implementation of ICMP tools.
Hence, we have chosen to normatively mandate a single dummy address. For
this reason, we request publication of this document as Standards Track.
I hope you find this argument convincing. If you do not, then please
suggest a way to proceed that will not prevent this document from being
normatively cited in Standards Track RFCs.
Thanks,
-- Juliusz
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
