Source-Specific Routing in the Babel Routing Protocol
draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-08

[Ballot discuss]
Please see the comment below for further description.

My specific discuss issue relates to clarifying the indexes of the 'source' and 'route' tables to indicate whether they are replacing the 'prefix-len' elements of the existing 3 tuple indexes, or adding additional elements to the existing index, effectively making them 5 tuple indexes.

[Ballot comment]
Hi,

Caveat, I'm not familiar with the Babel routing protocol, and I might be getting the wrong end of the stick.

In some ways I found the content and concepts of this document easy to understand, but the choice of particular terminology made is hard for me to know for sure that I am correctly interpreting this document.  In particular, I am confused between the definition of "source", "destination prefix" and "source prefix" between this document and draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis.

I might be completely confused, but my understanding is that what is called the "destination prefix" in this document, is effectively what is referred to as the "source" in draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis (e.g., in the Route Table in section 3.2.5), that also happens to be a prefix.  Is that right?

A further confusion is that this draft seems to sometimes describes prefixes differently from how they are described in the Babel RFC that it is extending.  E.g., it seems that in some cases the prefix-length is implicitly part of the prefix, and in other cases it is described as a separate element (e.g., in the 'source' and 'route' table indexes).

Specifically:

    3.1.  The Source Table

      Every Babel node maintains a source table, as described in [BABEL]
      Section 3.2.5.  A source-specific Babel node extends this table with
      the following field:

      o  The source prefix specifying the source address of packets to
          which this entry applies.

      The source table is now indexed by triples of the form (prefix,
      source prefix, router-id).

According to 3.2.5 of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis, the table is already index by a triple, i.e. prefix, prefix-len, router-id.  Is the intention of this document to remove prefix-len as one of the keys to the index?  I presume not, and that the new table is really indexed by a 5-tuple, i.e., adding source-prefix and source-prefix length to the existing keys.


      Note that the route entry contains a source (see sections 2 and 3.2.5
      of [BABEL]) which itself contains a source prefix.  These are two
      very different concepts that should not be confused.
     
Should this reference be to 3.2.6?  It may be helpful to expand on what the original "source" in a route entry means to avoid any confusion.

If my understanding is right, then I think that this document would greatly benefit from being very clear on the differences in terminology and probably be very specific about what they mean in the context of this document.

Regards,
Rob

[Ballot comment]
[Dear all, please accept my apologies for the wrong DISCUSS point... a copy and paste error done without enough coffee... There are NO DISCUSS point in my ballot]

Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read albeit not always clear and specific (see later). The topic of source address dependent routing is really critical for IPv6 deployment, so, I really appreciate your work on the topic

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points, and some nits.

I also second Warren's DISCUSS on the lack of clarity in the section 4 example

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Generic comment: did the author read draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing ? It is an expired RTG WG adopted document and is not even cited as informative reference.

Same for reference to RFC 8678.

-- Section 3.1 --
Is the first "prefix" the "destination prefix" in the following text? If so, then I suggest to write "destination prefix" or explain what is this "prefix" with reference to the Bable RFC:
  "The source table is now indexed by triples of the form (prefix,
  source prefix, router-id)."

-- Section 4 --
May I suggest to add another example with 2 entries have the same destination prefix but different source prefixes ?

-- Section 6 --
May be my lack of knowledge in Babel is the reason why I do not understand the loop avoidance description... As written in the text, a single non-source-aware router in the network could be enough to introduce loop (in specific configurations). Writing the following text appear to me as a little hand waving because how can this be ensure (I was about to file a block DISCUSS on this but I am trusting the routing AD on this topic):
"  Consequently, this extension MUST NOT be used
  with routers implementing RFC 6126, otherwise persistent routing
  loops may occur."

-- Section 6.2 --
The last paragraph is also a little hand waving where it is assumed that network topology/configuration is specific to avoid a route starvation.

-- Section 7.1 --
Should the text state the obvious by stating that the prefix (non 8 multiple) is padded with bits set to 0 on transmission and those bits are ignored on reception ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 4 and possibly others --
Please use RFC 5952 to write IPv6 addresses.

-- Section 5.2 --
Please introduce the "AE" acronym at first use (even if guessable in the context).

[Ballot discuss]
Thank you for the work put into this document. The document is easy to read albeit not always clear and specific (see later). The topic of source address dependent routing is really critical for IPv6 deployment, so, I really appreciate your work on the topic

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (trivial to fix), some non-blocking COMMENT points, and some nits.

I also second Warren's DISCUSS on the lack of clarity in the section 4 example

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== DISCUSS ==

Please update IPv6 reference from RFC 2460 to RFC 8200: I told you that this was an easy to fix DISCUSS point

[Ballot comment]
== COMMENTS ==

Generic comment: did the author read draft-ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing ? It is an expired RTG WG adopted document and is not even cited as informative reference.

Same for reference to RFC 8678.

-- Section 3.1 --
Is the first "prefix" the "destination prefix" in the following text? If so, then I suggest to write "destination prefix" or explain what is this "prefix":
  "The source table is now indexed by triples of the form (prefix,
  source prefix, router-id)."

-- Section 4 --
May I suggest to add another example with 2 entries have the same destination prefix but different source prefixes ?

-- Section 6 --
May be my lack of knowledge in Babel is the reason why I do not understand the loop avoidance description... As written in the text, a single non-source-aware router in the network could be enough to introduce loop (in specific configurations). Writing the following text appear to me as a little hand waving because how can this be ensure (I was about to file a block DISCUSS on this but I am trusting the routing AD on this topic):
"  Consequently, this extension MUST NOT be used
  with routers implementing RFC 6126, otherwise persistent routing
  loops may occur."

-- Section 6.2 --
The last paragraph is also a little hand waving where it is assumed that network topology/configuration is specific to avoid a route starvation.

-- Section 7.1 --
Should the text state the obvious by stating that the prefix (non 8 multiple) is padded with bits set to 0 on transmission and those bits are ignored on reception ?

== NITS ==

-- Section 4 and possibly others --
Please use RFC 5952 to write IPv6 addresses.

-- Section 5.2 --
Please introduce the "AE" acronym at first use (even if guessable in the context).

[Ballot discuss]
I am concerned about the congestion implications of this architecture. If there are P prefixes in the network, the number of TLVs exchanged potentially goes from P to P^2.

Perhaps this is an unrealistic use case. But are there any safeguards in the protocol against this happening (e.g. limitations on size/freq of updates?) Or ought there to be some operational guidance to be somewhat selective about source prefixes?

[Ballot discuss]
I apologize for being rushed, and not balloting earlier, but I feel like I must have missed something fundamental here.

The example in Section 4 (Data Forwarding) illustrates an issue, but doesn't actually *state* which (A or B) next hop will be used.
The text then says that: "A Babel implementation MUST choose routing table entries by using the so-called destination-first ordering,".
I interpret this to mean that the packet "with source 2001:DB8:0:2::42 and destination 2001:DB8:0:1::57" should use next-hop A. This means that you will be sending the packet to the destination with no regard for if the provider connected to next-hop A carries/announces 2001:DB8:0:2::/64. If if it doesn't, this will look like a spoofing attack, and the ISP will (rightly) drop it.

The only way that I can see this working is if:
1: destination routes never point "outside" the network (and so will never hit inbound BCP38 filters) or
2: destination routes always "match" - if you install x:y:z::/q pointing at next-hop A, you also install the same router pointing at next-hop B (this is pointless).

Please help me understand what I'm missing here -- routing on destination to an ISP (which is what I'm assuming based on the "small networks" statement) seems like it will route packets with ISP B sources addresses to ISP A, running into BCP38/anti-spoofing filters. BCP84 also covers a number of scenarios - it sounds like you are referring to Section 4.3.  Send Traffic Using a Provider Prefix Only to That Provider, but that is exactly what is not happening above.

Again, I'm assuming that I'm just missing something blindingly obvious here, but it would be good to figure out what, so the document can be clarified and others don't fall into the same trap...

[Ballot discuss]
I am balloting DISCUSS because I believe that the document is missing important considerations/details related to the operation of Babel in a network.  I hope these points should be easy to address.


This draft describes destination-first forwarding.  If I understand correctly, for the table in §4:

            destination                source    next-hop
      2001:DB8:0:1::/64                  ::/0            A
                    ::/0    2001:DB8:0:2::/64            B

...and the example presented of a "source 2001:DB8:0:2::42 and destination 2001:DB8:0:1::57", the result is that the packet is forwarded to A.  Is this the correct interpretation?  If so, then I believe there are important assumptions made that are not mentioned. 

In line with this document being "applicable to small networks" (§1), BCP 84/§4.3 recommends the following:

  For smaller edge networks that use provider-based addressing and
  whose ISPs implement ingress filters (which they should do), the
  third option is to route traffic being sourced from a given
  provider's address space to that provider.

Given that the draft provides no details, I assume that being "compatible with [BCP84]" (§1) means at least that Babel nodes aim to "route traffic being sourced from a given provider's address space to that provider".



(a) While I understand the table above is just an example, it can be interpreted as indicating that B is the provider that assigned the 2001:DB8:0:2::/64 prefix.  If traffic sourced from that prefix is sent to A, then there's a good chance that the packet will be dropped (in line with BCP 84, BCP 38, etc.).

Maybe the table is not intended to illustrate the routing table at a multihomed edge router. Still, it shows how easy it is to define a policy that may not result in the expected behavior because of the destination-first operation.  Please add some guidance on the advertisements and how they may interact in the routing table. 

Note that what I'm asking for may just be a good example of what to do/not to do.  rfc8678/§5 presents an example of how the forwarding table is constructed based on a set of routes -- something like that would be great!


(b) How is the source address selected by the host? 

rfc8678 uses guidance from rfc8028 and other RFCs as part of a set of "Mechanisms for Hosts To Choose Good Default Source Addresses in a Multihomed Site".  rfc8678 significantly differs from this document in that it assumes source-first forwarding when discussing the selection of the source address.  Are any of the recommendations in rfc8678 applicable here?

I may be missing something, but it seems to me that the current standards-based recommendations/mechanisms don't easily apply to this specification.  I don't think there's anything wrong with doing things a different way -- but I expect those differences to be explicitly explained.

SS-ROUTING suggests a trial-and-error mechanism: for "destination addresses...the sending host tries them all...similarly, all possible source addresses are tried in turn."  Is that the expectation here?

Even though this document is about Babel and not the host, I would like to see a (short) discussion about how the host is expected to behave (or what it needs to consider) in light of the destination-first operation.

[Ballot comment]
(1) §4 talks about "lower layers", what are those?  Please be specific. 


(2) The second bullet in §4 says that "Babel...MUST either silently ignore any source-specific routes, or disambiguate..."  Given the required (use of MUST) nature of the disambiguation, I would like to see an algorithm for it, not just an example.  I do not include this point in the DISCUSS section because I think there are ways not to require disambiguation; perhaps something along the lines of:

  ...SHOULD silently ignore any source-specific routes.  A router can also
  choose to use a disambiguation algorithm (see SS-ROUTING for an example),
  but the details are out of this document's scope.


(3) §7.1: "Source Plen  The length of the advertised source prefix."  Indicate in bits.

[Ballot comment]
Section 3.1

  Note that the route entry contains a source (see sections 2 and 3.2.5
  of [BABEL]) which itself contains a source prefix.  These are two
  very different concepts that should not be confused.

I appreciate having this note; thanks.  I wonder if it is worth
reiterating that the stock [BABEL] "source prefix" is the prefix of the
source of the routing information, to jog the reader's memory.

Section 5.1

  Prefix sub-TLV.  When a node receives a source-specific Update
  (prefix, source prefix, router-id, seqno, metric) from a neighbour
  neigh, it behaves as described in [BABEL] Section 3.5.4, except that

It looks like some section renumbering has occurred, as §3.5.3 of
draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-20 looks much more relevant than §3.5.4
does.

  the entry under consideration is indexed by (prefix, source prefix,
  neigh) rather than just (prefix, neigh).

[The two prefix lengths are implicit now, though were explicit in
[BABEL]?]

Section 5.2

We should probably expand "AE" on first use.

Section 6.2

Is there also the possibility of a kind of starvation where
source-specific routers do not get source-specific routes because the
source-specific routes are dropped by non-source-specific routers
between them and the source of the route advertisement?  Intuitively, it
seems that once you have a connected backbone of source-specific routers
this would only happen if a given source-specific router only has paths
to the backbone that go through non-source-specific routers, and so the
router in question is effectively operating in a non-source-specific
mode, but perhaps there are more interesting scenarios in the absence of
such a backbone.

  A simple yet sufficient condition for avoiding starvation is to build
  a connected source-specific backbone that includes all of the edge
  routers, [...]

I'm not sure I understand what "connected backbone that includes all of
the edge routers" is intended to mean.  If the edge routers are to be
included in the connected backbone (i.e., to implement source-specific),
then wouldn't that make the connected backbone basically all routers?
Or is the intent that any given edge router has a link to a router in
the backbone?  Or something else?

Section 7.1

If I recall correctly, Babel sub-TLVs do not admit sub-sub-TLVs, so we
would treat a sub-TLV "length" that indicates more bytes of payload than
indicated by the "source plen" as an encoding error and reject the
sub-TLV, right?

  Source Plen  The length of the advertised source prefix.  This MUST
            NOT be 0.

Please use "length in bits" to match 6126bis.

Section 7.3

Should we consider being consistent about the use of parentheses around
"route" in the section heading and section body?

Section 7.4

Just to check my understanding: we do not expect issues where (e.g.) a
source-specific seqno request is sent to a non-source-specific node and
thus dropped, because seqno requests are supposed to be sent only to
nodes that are or in the past were advertising a (possibly non-feasible) route
for that prefix.  Such a source-specific advertisement would only be sent
by a source-specific node, that would accordingly not drop the seqno request.

Section 9

I was surprised to see in a quick check of 6126bis that there did not
seem to be a prominent mention in the security considerations of "make
sure your parser handles TLVs that indicate a length larger than the
size of the packet".  Should there be one?

Other than that (which is not really even a comment on this document), I
like the security considerations here: they're clear on the consequences
of the new behaviors from this protocol extension, and give enough
examples of how that might impact the security properties of the system
as a whole.  Thank you!

  The extension defined in this document adds a new sub-TLV to three
  TLVs already present in the original Babel protocol, and does not
  change the security properties of the protocol itself.  However, the

We might as well toss another [BABEL] in here; they're cheap.

Section 11.1

We cite BCP84 as part of the line "which is compatible with [BCP84]".
That in and of itself does not necessarily seem like enough to justify a
normative relationship, though perhaps there are other reasons why it is
needed.

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for an easy read.  I have only some minor comments:

— Section 5.2 —
Please expand “AE” on first use.  You should also do the same in Section 4.1.4 of draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis.

  A node MUST NOT send
  a wildcard retraction with an attached source prefix, and a node that
  receives a wildcard retraction with a source prefix MUST ignore it.

The “it” here is ambiguous: please specify “MUST ignore the source prefix” or “MUST ignore the retraction”.  The same comment applies also to the subsequent paragraph.

— Section 6.1 —
For what it’s worth, I don’t find the diagram to add anything to the text, and I wouldn’t have a clue what the diagram was trying to say without the text.

  Packets
  destined to D but not sourced in S will be forwarded by A to B, and
  by B to A, causing a persistent routing loop

That text is describing not what will happen with this standard, but what *would* happen if this standard didn’t correct for it.  So please change “will be forwarded” to”would be forwarded”, or perhaps “would then be forwarded”.  And in the previous sentence, change “merely ignores” to “merely ignored”.  These make it clearer that they’re talking about a hypothetical situation that’s counter to what’s specified herein.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there is a single action which we must complete.

In the Babel Sub-TLV Types registry on the Babel Routing Protocol registry page located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/babel/

the early allocation for the following Sub-TLV

Type: 128
Name: Source Prefix

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

The IANA Functions Operator understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-10-27):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-babel-source-specific@ietf.org, martin.vigoureux@nokia.com, babel-chairs@ietf.org, babel@ietf.org, Donald Eastlake , d3e3e3@gmail.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Source-Specific Routing in Babel) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Babel routing protocol WG (babel) to
consider the following document: - 'Source-Specific Routing in Babel'
  as Proposed Standard

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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-10-27. 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


  Source-specific routing (also known as Source-Address Dependent
  Routing, SADR) is an extension to traditional next-hop routing where
  packets are forwarded according to both their destination and their
  source address.  This document describes an extension for source-
  specific routing to the Babel routing protocol.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-source-specific/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-05

(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?

Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page. This document
extends the Babel routing protocol so that the routing of a packet can
depend on the source address as well as the destination address.

(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:

Source-specific routing (also known as Source-Address Dependent
Routing, SADR) is an extension to traditional next-hop routing where
packets are forwarded according to both their destination and their
source address.  This document describes an extension for source-
specific routing to the Babel routing protocol.

  Working Group Summary:

Discussion of the draft during WG Last Call extended to one aspect of
the rfc6126bis draft but WG consensus supported both this draft and
not changing rfc6126bis.

  Document Quality:

The quality of the document is good. There are two known
implementations: babeld in the currently unreleased 1.9 branch and
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen's code in BIRD.

  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.

Shepherd review is here
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/S4QVnhDZ38bsph2qOvw06qzEfoU
Discussion on the list of the review comments lead to the -05 version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No review concerns. In addition to the Shepherd review and general
review by the Working Group there was an early Routing Directorate
review as shown here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/-V3XN6IHqAEVjIyCpztO9PsoCvA

(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. There was an early Routing Directorate review (see 4 above).

(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, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/ne-KW9H84FgApfcbWegSNA5v94I
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/vd9Tht3TaVH5DC_D4IwpmZWGi8g

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
    others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
    agree with it?

There is a reasonable consensus for this document. All commenters
during Last Call supported the document except for one who objected to
the provision in draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis that left the version
number at 2 and possible interaction of this with the source specific
draft. This issues was discussed during the Last Call of source
specific and a consensus favored leaving the source-specific and
rfc6126bis drafts as is.

(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). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

Two of the references to drafts reference a version number one less
than the current version number.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

No formal review criteria apply to this document.

(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?

There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-babel-rfc-6126bis
publication of which as an RFC has been requested and which is
currently in the AD Review state.

(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.

There are no downward references. (There is a reference to a BCP.)

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs?

This document does not affect the status of any existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
    considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
    with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol
    extensions that the document makes are associated with the
    appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any
    referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
    specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
    allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
    a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
    RFC 5226).

The only required IANA action is the allocation of a Babel sub-TLV
type number. This action has already occurred and is documented in
this draft.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
    future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
    would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
    registries.

This document does not create any IANA registries.

(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 appears in this document.

draft-ietf-babel-source-specific-05

(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?

Proposed Standard as indicated on the title page. This document
extends the Babel routing protocol so that the routing of a packet can
depend on the source address as well as the destination address.

(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:

Source-specific routing (also known as Source-Address Dependent
Routing, SADR) is an extension to traditional next-hop routing where
packets are forwarded according to both their destination and their
source address.  This document describes an extension for source-
specific routing to the Babel routing protocol.

  Working Group Summary:

Discussion of the draft during WG Last Call extended to one aspect of
the rfc6126bis draft but WG consensus supported both this draft and
not changing rfc6126bis.

  Document Quality:

The quality of the document is good. There are two known
implementations: babeld in the currently unreleased 1.9 branch and
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen's code in BIRD.

  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.

Shepherd review is here
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/S4QVnhDZ38bsph2qOvw06qzEfoU
Discussion on the list of the review comments lead to the -05 version.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No review concerns. In addition to the Shepherd review and general
review by the Working Group there was an early Routing Directorate
review as shown here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/-V3XN6IHqAEVjIyCpztO9PsoCvA

(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. There was an early Routing Directorate review (see 4 above).

(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, see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/ne-KW9H84FgApfcbWegSNA5v94I
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/vd9Tht3TaVH5DC_D4IwpmZWGi8g

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
    others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
    agree with it?

There is a reasonable consensus for this document. All commenters
during Last Call supported the document except for one who objected to
the provision in draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis that left the version
number at 2 and possible interaction of this with the source specific
draft. This issues was discussed during the Last Call of source
specific and a consensus favored leaving the source-specific and
rfc6126bis drafts as is.

(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). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

Two of the references to drafts reference a version number one less
than the current version number.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

No formal review criteria apply to this document.

(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?

There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-babel-rfc-6126bis
publication of which as an RFC has been requested and which is
currently in the AD Review state.

(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.

There are no downward references. (There is a reference to a BCP.)

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs?

This document does not affect the status of any existing RFC.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
    considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
    with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol
    extensions that the document makes are associated with the
    appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any
    referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
    specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
    allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
    a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
    RFC 5226).

The only required IANA action is the allocation of a Babel sub-TLV
type number. This action has already occurred and is documented in
this draft.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
    future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
    would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
    registries.

This document does not create any IANA registries.

(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 appears in this document.