The Babel Routing Protocol
draft-chroboczek-babel-routing-protocol-05

[Ballot discuss]
I am interested in understanding the operational impact of deploying this experimental protocol in, say, a production environment or in the Internet.
Will this experimental protocol interfere with other routing protocols, if deployed together, or can it co-exist easily?

[Ballot comment]
Section 5., paragraph 0:
> 5.  IANA Considerations

  I note that the IANA Considerations do not actually *instruct* IANA to
  make any registrations?

[Ballot comment]
I'd like to thank the author for being willing to engage with reviewers and working to accommodate their concerns even though this I-D is an independent submission.

IANA has two questions about the IANA Actions in this document.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three
actions that need to be completed.

First, a single port number, for UDP only, will be assigned from the
User Registered Port Number range. The short name of the port will be
"babel" and the long name of the port will be "Babel Protocol"

Second, IANA will allocate an IPv4 multicast address for the use of the
Babel protocol.

IANA Question -> from which range in the registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/multicast-addresses/multicast-addresses.xhtml

should this IPv4 multicast address come from?

Third, IANA will allocate an IPv6 multicast address for the use of the
Babel protocol.

IANA Question -> from which scoped range of addresses in the registry
located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-multicast-addresses/ipv6-multicast-addresses.xhtml

should this IPv6 multicast address come from?

IANA understands that these three actions are all that need to be
completed upon approval of this document.

State changed to IESG Evaluation from AD Evaluation.
I believe that this document should have a warning that it is not a product of the IETF and is not a candidate for standardization at any level.