Juliusz, Thanks for making these edits, they look great. The only real issue is the handling of NextHop and RouterID with unknown mandatory sub-TLVs, which was discussed on another thread.
I also think Appendix C (Considerations for protocol extensions) should be changed now that we have mandatory sub-TLVs. I'll try to contribute text. David > On May 24, 2017, at 10:22, Juliusz Chroboczek <j...@irif.fr> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I've just published a new version of the Babel protocol specification: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-babel-rfc6126bis-02 > > This version containts some fairly major changes, the most notable being > the addition of mandatory bits to the extension subprotocol. There have > also been some fairly technical changes to the procedures for sending of > requests, which should not invalidate any existing implementations. > > The mandatory bit makes the protocol more easily extensible by making it > possible to explicitly encode the fact that an extension is not backwards > compatible. It has greatly simplified the packet format of Matthieu > Boutier's source-specific extension [1], and is used by Gwendoline > Chouasne's TOS-specific extension [2]. > > [1] https://github.com/boutier/babeld/tree/dev > [2] https://github.com/Gwendocg/babeldToS > > Both babeld and sbabeld have support for mandatory bits in their > "mandatory" branches. I'll wait a few days to see if there are any flaws > in this proposal, then merge into trunk. Please consider implementing > mandatory bits if you have an implementation of Babel. > > The backwards compatibility of this change is reasonably strong, but > somewhat weaker than what we at Babel Towers have been doing previously. > More exactly: > > - new implementations of Babel will interoperate with old > implementations as long as the former don't use any extensions that > the latter don't understand; > - new implementations of Babel that use the new extensions (new-style > source-specific routing, TOS-specific routing) will not interoperate > with old implementations, and might even create routing loops. > > We will refrain from deploying the new extensions until all implementations > have acquired support for mandatory bits. > > Please read. Please think it over. Please comment. > > -- Juliusz > > _______________________________________________ > Babel-users mailing list > Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list Babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users