Applicability of the Babel Routing Protocol
draft-ietf-babel-applicability-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2021-01-11 |
10 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8965, changed title to 'Applicability of the Babel Routing Protocol', changed abstract to 'Babel is a … Received changes through RFC Editor sync (created alias RFC 8965, changed title to 'Applicability of the Babel Routing Protocol', changed abstract to 'Babel is a routing protocol based on the distance-vector algorithm augmented with mechanisms for loop avoidance and starvation avoidance. This document describes a number of niches where Babel has been found to be useful and that are arguably not adequately served by more mature protocols.', changed pages to 10, changed standardization level to Informational, changed state to RFC, added RFC published event at 2021-01-11, changed IESG state to RFC Published) |
2021-01-11 |
10 | (System) | RFC published |
2020-12-16 |
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-11-23 |
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-10-01 |
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-09-08 |
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2020-09-04 |
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2020-09-03 |
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF from EDIT |
2020-09-03 |
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-09-03 |
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-09-03 |
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-09-03 |
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-09-03 |
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-09-03 |
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-09-03 |
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-09-03 |
10 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup |
2020-08-25 |
10 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-04-24 |
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::AD Followup from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2019-08-26 |
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Assignment of request for Last Call review by OPSDIR to Tim Wicinski was marked no-response |
2019-08-17 |
10 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-10.txt |
2019-08-17 |
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-17 |
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2019-08-17 |
10 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-08 |
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2019-08-08 |
09 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2019-08-08 |
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot comment] I agree with several of my co-ADs that this document reads a lot like marketing but I don’t feel strongly enough about it … [Ballot comment] I agree with several of my co-ADs that this document reads a lot like marketing but I don’t feel strongly enough about it to ask for specific changes. |
2019-08-08 |
09 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I agree with several other ADs that the document tries too hard to be a marketing brochure. I do not find that sufficiently … [Ballot comment] I agree with several other ADs that the document tries too hard to be a marketing brochure. I do not find that sufficiently objectionable to interfere, but it would be nice to tone it down a bit. |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] When a use case calls for all nodes to participate in the IGP (as opposed to just connecting to a local point of … [Ballot comment] When a use case calls for all nodes to participate in the IGP (as opposed to just connecting to a local point of access and letting that router run the IGP, there may be privacy considerations regarding the mobility/connectivity of individual nodes in the information conveyed over the routing protocol. It would be good to acknowledge that such use cases may exist (or disclaim applicability to them) in this document. Section 1.1 It's probably worth expanding DSDV on first use. Section 2.2 (side note: this is probably just me coming from an abstract math/topology background and not a routing background, but the term "non-transitive link" puzzles me a little bit. My understanding of the non-transitivity property is that if A has a link to B, and B has a link to C, then it's not necessarily the case that A can get traffic to/from C via B. But that seems like more of a property of the node policy or other constraints on B than of any particular link. I can live with being puzzled, here, but if there's a quick explanation, I'd be interested in hearing it.) Section 2.3 All of the extensions designed to date interoperate with the base protocol and with each other. This, again, is a consequence of the protocol design: in order to check that two extensions to the Babel protocol are interoperable, it is enough to verify that the interaction of the two does not violate the base protocol's assumptions. As another reviewer noted, "interoperable" doesn't seem like quite the right word; "compatible" seems potentially more appropriate, or perhaps "usable with each other". Section 2.4.3 Babel's loop-avoidance mechanism relies on making a route unreachable after a retraction until all neighbours have been guaranteed to have acted upon the retraction, even in the presence of packet loss. Unless the optional algorithm described in Section 3.5.5 of [RFC6126bis] is implemented, this entails that a node is unreachable for a few minutes after the most specific route to it has been retracted. [...] Section 3.5.5 of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-07 seems to discuss two different mechanismis to guarantee that no neighbor is using the current node as next-hop for prefix P. (1) is that the operation being referred to here, and (2) if so, should this be "one of the mechanisms"? Basically, I'm not sure I'm chasing the reference in the way intended. Section 5 I think we need to couch the "most deployments" language with something like "at the time of this writing" -- there's no guarantee that it will remain true in perpetuity. Given, e.g., https://www.krackattacks.com/, it's unclear to me that it's reasonable to continue to claim that WPA2 provides a way to secure a link layer. (WPA3 is not shaping up to do much better, given https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/04/vulnerabilities_7.html .) |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] (1) Section 2.1. This section makes a number strong claims that I would recommend be tempered: -- Per the sentence, “Given a sufficiently … [Ballot comment] (1) Section 2.1. This section makes a number strong claims that I would recommend be tempered: -- Per the sentence, “Given a sufficiently friendly audience, the principles behind Babel can be explained in 15 minutes, and a full description of the protocol can be done in 52 minutes (one microcentury)”, what does this mean? If this is to suggest to the reader that they too can learn Babel in 15 minutes, it is unconvincing and reads like a marketing statement. -- Per the phrase, “…including one that was reportedly written and debugged in just two nights“, this statement is not convincing without context. -- Per the sentence, “In addition to the above, our implementation experience indicates that Babel tends to be robust with respect to bugs: more often than not, an implementation bug …”, this text is an improvement over -07 (thank you), but I still view this as a high risk, anecdotal claim. I strongly recommend it be removed. (2) Section 2.2. This section uses the designation of “strong” vs. a “weak” property. Where are those defined? (3) Section 2.2. Per the sub-bullets of “These weak requirements make Babel a robust protocol …”, what assurance does the phrase “does most likely not” suggest? Furthermore, the claim that implementation bugs won’t collapse the network based on an uncited “extensive” experience seems too strong of claim. (4) Per Section 3.1. How big is a “medium-sized hybrid network”? (5) Per Section 3.1. What are “meshy wireless bits”? (6) Section 3.2. Is there a citation for the successful deployment in “large scale overlay networks, built out of thousands of tunnels spanning continents”? (7) Section 3.4. The utility of Babel in small and home offices surprised me as I wasn't expecting such networks to mix IPv4 and v6; and use an IGP. (8) Section 5. Per the sentence “Due to its simplicity, Babel-HMAC …”, I’m not sure that simplicity should be driving the choice of the security properties. It seems like it should be the security requirements. |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] No blocking comment: Given the different environments where Babel can be used, it would be ideal if Operational Guidance for future deployments was … [Ballot comment] No blocking comment: Given the different environments where Babel can be used, it would be ideal if Operational Guidance for future deployments was provided. For context, please see my ballot for draft-ietf-babel-applicability: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/o-yj5D9vXa2Th9orObWDh-heEU8 |
2019-08-07 |
09 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2019-08-06 |
09 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-08-06 |
09 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-09.txt |
2019-08-06 |
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-06 |
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2019-08-06 |
09 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-06 |
08 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-08-06 |
08 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2019-08-06 |
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this document and the recent updates. While it is an easy read, I agree with others that there might still … [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this document and the recent updates. While it is an easy read, I agree with others that there might still be some case where maybe benefits are overstated, e.g. sec 2.1 is not very objective and only provides basically two anecdotes. Other examples are these sentences: "In addition to the above, our implementation experience indicates that Babel tends to be robust with respect to bugs: more often than not, an implementation bug does not violate the properties on which Babel relies, and therefore slows down convergence or causes sub- optimal routing rather than causing the network to collapse." or "No other routing protocol known to us is similarly robust and efficient in this particular kind of topology." (also still one "us" here) |
2019-08-06 |
08 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2019-08-05 |
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] Juliusz, Thank you for addressing my previous DISCUSS. I have edited my position to "no objection". -éric == (previous) DISCUSS == -- Section … [Ballot comment] Juliusz, Thank you for addressing my previous DISCUSS. I have edited my position to "no objection". -éric == (previous) DISCUSS == -- Section 2.2 -- The 'bug resistance' property of Babel was perhaps learned during the implementation, but, I wonder whether the document may simply state 'robust with respect to bugs', this is quite a strong statement that needs to be backed by facts or proof. == COMMENTS == The title of the document is about 'applicability'; but, should it also include 'use cases' in the title ? -- Section 3.1 -- The 2nd paragraph is too dense: should explain why Babel is a good fit. -- Section 5 -- Comparison between HMAC & DTLS variants is probably irrelevant in this document. Though, a use case with security in mind would be benefitial. Also, the comparison should include all aspects including confidentiality and anti-reply for both HMAC & DTLS. == NITS == -- Section 2.2 -- As I am not a native English speaker, I wonder whether 'light' should not be preferred to 'weak' in "These weak requirements make Babel a robust protocol" -- Section 3.1 -- Suggest to change the section name into "Diverse networks" or "heterogenous networks". |
2019-08-05 |
08 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Éric Vyncke has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-08-05 |
08 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-08-05 |
08 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-08.txt |
2019-08-05 |
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-08-05 |
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2019-08-05 |
08 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-05 |
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this. I find the use of "we" and "our" odd for a consensus document. I think the document would be … [Ballot comment] Thanks for writing this. I find the use of "we" and "our" odd for a consensus document. I think the document would be improved if these used the document itself as the subject (e.g., "this document describes" instead of "we describe"). I think the claims made in the bulleted list at the end of Section 2.2 need citations. |
2019-08-05 |
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2019-08-05 |
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot comment] Agree with Eric, I think the document is a bit over zealous in it's claims and phrasing, e.g. "where traditional routing protocols give … [Ballot comment] Agree with Eric, I think the document is a bit over zealous in it's claims and phrasing, e.g. "where traditional routing protocols give up." One could say "where traditional routing protocols do not perform as well." As there are always tweaks to be made for the "traditional" to meet application needs and so avoid the fork lift of a new protocol. |
2019-08-05 |
07 | Deborah Brungard | Ballot comment text updated for Deborah Brungard |
2019-08-05 |
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2019-08-05 |
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot discuss] Julius, Thank you for the work put into this document. I have one DISCUSS and a couple of COMMENTs. One generic comment: is … [Ballot discuss] Julius, Thank you for the work put into this document. I have one DISCUSS and a couple of COMMENTs. One generic comment: is there a need to describe (even in a short format) Babel again? Regards, -éric == DISCUSS == -- Section 2.2 -- The 'bug resistance' property of Babel was perhaps learned during the implementation, but, I wonder whether the document may simply state 'robust with respect to bugs', this is quite a strong statement that needs to be backed by facts or proof. |
2019-08-05 |
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] == COMMENTS == The title of the document is about 'applicability'; but, should it also include 'use cases' in the title ? -- … [Ballot comment] == COMMENTS == The title of the document is about 'applicability'; but, should it also include 'use cases' in the title ? -- Section 3.1 -- The 2nd paragraph is too dense: should explain why Babel is a good fit. -- Section 5 -- Comparison between HMAC & DTLS variants is probably irrelevant in this document. Though, a use case with security in mind would be benefitial. Also, the comparison should include all aspects including confidentiality and anti-reply for both HMAC & DTLS. == NITS == -- Section 2.2 -- As I am not a native English speaker, I wonder whether 'light' should not be preferred to 'weak' in "These weak requirements make Babel a robust protocol" -- Section 3.1 -- Suggest to change the section name into "Diverse networks" or "heterogenous networks". |
2019-08-05 |
07 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2019-07-16 |
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2019-07-15 |
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Scott Kelly. |
2019-07-12 |
07 | Martin Vigoureux | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-07-12 |
07 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2019-08-08 |
2019-07-12 |
07 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2019-07-12 |
07 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot has been issued |
2019-07-12 |
07 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2019-07-12 |
07 | Martin Vigoureux | Created "Approve" ballot |
2019-07-12 |
07 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot writeup was changed |
2019-07-07 |
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2019-07-07 |
07 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-07.txt |
2019-07-07 |
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-07 |
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2019-07-07 |
07 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-07-04 |
06 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2019-07-03 |
06 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sasha Vainshtein. |
2019-07-03 |
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2019-07-03 |
06 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-babel-applicability-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-babel-applicability-06, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2019-06-25 |
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
2019-06-25 |
06 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
2019-06-24 |
06 | Joel Halpern | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Joel Halpern. Sent review to list. |
2019-06-22 |
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-06-22 |
06 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Scott Kelly |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Min Ye | Request for Last Call review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Joel Halpern |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-04): From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-applicability@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, d3e3e3@gmail.com, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-07-04): From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org> CC: babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, draft-ietf-babel-applicability@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, d3e3e3@gmail.com, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-babel-applicability-06.txt> (Applicability of the Babel routing protocol) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Babel routing protocol WG (babel) to consider the following document: - 'Applicability of the Babel routing protocol' <draft-ietf-babel-applicability-06.txt> as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-07-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Babel is a routing protocol based on the distance-vector algorithm augmented with mechanisms for loop avoidance and starvation avoidance. In this document, we argue that there exist niches where Babel is useful and that are not adequately served by more mature protocols. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-applicability/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-applicability/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Requested Last Call review by RTGDIR |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Last call was requested |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Ballot writeup was generated |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-06-20 |
06 | Martin Vigoureux | Last call announcement was generated |
2019-04-26 |
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-04-26 |
06 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-06.txt |
2019-04-26 |
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-26 |
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2019-04-26 |
06 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-12 |
05 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from AD Evaluation |
2019-03-12 |
05 | Martin Vigoureux | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-12-25 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational as indicated on the title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Babel is a routing protocol based on the distance-vector algorithm augmented with mechanisms for loop avoidance and starvation avoidance. This applicability document argues that there exist niches where Babel is useful and that are not adequately served by other protocols. Working Group Summary: This was not a particularly controversial draft in the WG. There was substantial suport and no objection on the mailing list and consensus was declared during the WG meeting at IETF-102. Document Quality: This is a brief applicability document. There are multiple independent interoperable implementation of the routing protocol which is its subject. A Shepherd's review found only one minor typo that has been fixed. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. This is a short document that has had a routing review. See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg00531.html Ths Shepherd looked it over and found a typo introduced by the update to version -04 which has been fixed in -05. See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg01563.html (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such special review required. A rotuing QA review was done 31 January 2017. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No special concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. Here is the IPR staement of the one author: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg01424.html (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? There is adequate consensus for the document. There was significant discussion at WG Last Call time. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Didn't find any nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? The only normative reference is draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis which is expected to be advanced soon. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? This document does not change the status of any other RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. This document requires no IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. No IANA registries created. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such formal language is used in this document. |
2018-12-25 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | Responsible AD changed to Martin Vigoureux |
2018-12-25 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-12-25 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2018-12-25 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-12-25 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2018-12-25 |
05 | Donald Eastlake | (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the … (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational as indicated on the title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary: Babel is a routing protocol based on the distance-vector algorithm augmented with mechanisms for loop avoidance and starvation avoidance. This applicability document argues that there exist niches where Babel is useful and that are not adequately served by other protocols. Working Group Summary: This was not a particularly controversial draft in the WG. There was substantial suport and no objection on the mailing list and consensus was declared during the WG meeting at IETF-102. Document Quality: This is a brief applicability document. There are multiple independent interoperable implementation of the routing protocol which is its subject. A Shepherd's review found only one minor typo that has been fixed. Personnel: Document Shepherd: Donald Eastlake Responsible Area Director: Martin Vigoureux (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. This is a short document that has had a routing review. See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg00531.html Ths Shepherd looked it over and found a typo introduced by the update to version -04 which has been fixed in -05. See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg01563.html (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. No such special review required. A rotuing QA review was done 31 January 2017. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? No special concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. Here is the IPR staement of the one author: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg01424.html (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No IPR disclosures. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? There is adequate consensus for the document. There was significant discussion at WG Last Call time. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Didn't find any nits. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No such formal review required. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? The only normative reference is draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis which is expected to be advanced soon. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No downward normative references. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? This document does not change the status of any other RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. This document requires no IANA actions. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. No IANA registries created. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No such formal language is used in this document. |
2018-11-14 |
05 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-05.txt |
2018-11-14 |
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-14 |
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2018-11-14 |
05 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-23 |
04 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-04.txt |
2018-10-23 |
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-23 |
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2018-10-23 |
04 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-10-09 |
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-07-18 |
03 | Donald Eastlake | Consensus declared at the BABEL WG meeting at the July 2018 IETF meeting. |
2018-07-18 |
03 | Donald Eastlake | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2018-07-18 |
03 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2018-04-11 |
03 | Donald Eastlake | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared. |
2018-04-11 |
03 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-04-07 |
03 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-03.txt |
2018-04-07 |
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-07 |
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2018-04-07 |
03 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2018-04-05 |
02 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-02.txt |
2018-04-05 |
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-04-05 |
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> |
2018-04-05 |
02 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2017-07-18 |
01 | Donald Eastlake | See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg00830.html |
2017-07-18 |
01 | Donald Eastlake | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set. |
2017-07-18 |
01 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2017-07-17 |
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2017-02-02 |
01 | Min Ye | Request for Early review by RTGDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Sasha Vainshtein. |
2017-01-09 |
01 | Donald Eastlake | See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/babel/current/msg00528.html |
2017-01-09 |
01 | Donald Eastlake | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2017-01-09 |
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein |
2017-01-09 |
01 | Jonathan Hardwick | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Sasha Vainshtein |
2017-01-08 |
01 | Donald Eastlake | Requested Early review by RTGDIR |
2017-01-05 |
01 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-01.txt |
2017-01-05 |
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-01-05 |
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: babel-chairs@ietf.org, "Juliusz Chroboczek" <jch@pps.univ-paris-diderot.fr> |
2017-01-05 |
01 | Juliusz Chroboczek | Uploaded new revision |
2017-01-02 |
00 | Donald Eastlake | Notification list changed to "Donald Eastlake" <d3e3e3@gmail.com> |
2017-01-02 |
00 | Donald Eastlake | Document shepherd changed to Donald E. Eastlake 3rd |
2016-08-08 |
00 | Donald Eastlake | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2016-07-08 |
00 | Donald Eastlake | Adopted as a WG draft. |
2016-07-08 |
00 | Donald Eastlake | This document now replaces draft-chroboczek-babel-applicability instead of None |
2016-07-08 |
00 | Juliusz Chroboczek | New version available: draft-ietf-babel-applicability-00.txt |