I’ll chime in here reinforce what Barbara says here on the document status.
In light of the evolution of the homenet discussions and particularly in light
of the PS work happening for babel (RFC6126) inclusive of the lack of proposed
alternatives. I am satisfied with the document moving forward. In the
discussions with the chairs I recall being asked if I was ok with PS. I
affirmed at that stage.
I maintain that position – I think PS is the correct status for this draft.
Cheers
Terry
On 10/05/2018, 08:20, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7...@att.com> wrote:
Hi Alvaro,
Thanks for the comments. I agree we need to make sure the community is
comfortable with the decision. I've inserted my comments in-line.
Barbara
> I would like to DISCUSS about the Intended Status of this document -- with
> the Chairs and AD.
>
> I have to confess that I haven't been following the homenet WG as closely
as
> I
> probably should have. Hopefully that means that the topic below has been
> discussed and documented already, making this DISCUSS easy to resolve.
>
> Back in 2015, the then-Chairs and the AD posted a note titled "Routing
Design
> Team outcome and next steps"[1]; in it, they declared "rough consensus
that
> Babel[*] shall be the “mandatory to implement” routing protocol for
> Homenet
> routers, albeit only on an Experimental basis at this time...we solicit
> Experimental Internet Drafts to document Homenet-specific profiles of any
> applicable routing solution and to report results of any relevant
> experimentation and implementation. We expect that this decision will be
> revisited in a future Standards Track document based on specifications and
> running code available at that time."
>
> My interpretation of the above text is that Babel is MTI,
<bhs> There is no draft or published RFC that proposes making Babel MTI.
The language of the quoted text is a bit odd (a MTI experimental protocol?),
which makes it open to interpretation. My interpretation differs from yours. My
interpretation was that people actively working to create (experimental) code
for homenet stacks needed to implement Babel if they wanted to test out
interoperability with other stacks. Those experimental stacks were created.
Interoperability was tested. We have running code and a standards-track Babel
draft (rfc6126bis) now. I don't believe a WG discussion has the ability to make
a protocol MTI in the absence of a published RFC that states it is MTI in some
context. No draft exists or has ever been submitted to propose making Babel
MTI.
> but that the work
> (documents) will be Experimental...and that this decision could change in
the
> future (most likely towards confirming and moving to the Standards Track).
> This document was originally adopted as Experimental. I didn't find an
> explicit discussion on the list about changing that original overall
direction,
> nor another declaration by the Chairs/AD. I did find find a thread in
which
> one of the Chairs (Barbara) asked about the status for this document (and
> this document only)[2]; the initial question was framed around the
references
> being Standards Track documents (HNCP and rfc6126bis) -- just one answer
came
> back (from the author of this document)...
>
> I'm treating this point as a DISCUSS because I think that the WG consensus
> may
> have not been determined to change the original declaration from the
> Chairs/AD
> (from 2015). In my interpretation of that original declaration, moving
Babel
> to the Standards Track means a recognition that it will be *the* protocol
> going
> forward (which changes that initial "only on an Experimental basis at this
> time" phrase), is something that should be discussed explicitly, and not
just
> in light of this one document. That is the part that I haven't seen.
<bhs> I consider the lack of alternate proposals as implying there are no
technical objections to Babel being *the* protocol. It's hard not to be *the*
protocol when you're the only protocol. Whether or not the
homenet-babel-profile is Standards track, it is *the* protocol in the absence
of others. And after 2 years of no other proposal being submitted and multiple
Babel profile implementations, I suspect WG participants might push back
heavily against adding another protocol. Another protocol would face a serious
uphill battle. And this would be true independent of the status attached to the
Babel profile. Two years is plenty of time to have submitted a draft.
But there is nothing in the language of the Babel profile that would
preclude submission of another protocol profile.
> I note that in the conclusion of the thread about the status of this
document
> [3] Barbara does include reasoning that may result in changing the
original
> declaration (as does the Shepherd writeup), for example: "there exist
> multiple,
> interoperable implementations" and "no drafts proposing other homenet
> routing
> protocol profiles have been submitted"...but those points don't seem to
> have
> been considered/discussed by the WG (they were not in the original
> message and
> I didn't find another thread -- I also looked at the minutes of the last
couple
> of IETF meetings).
>
> To be clear, I have no objection with Babel being used in homenet
> applications,
> or with it being the Standard protocol. My point here is that it is not
clear
> to me that the WG explicitly reached consensus to change the declaration
> from
> the Chairs/AD. I will be happy to clear this DISCUSS when the Chairs/AD
> point
> me to the discussion that I missed, or simply tell me that the
declaration from
> 2015 is no longer valid and that the WG knows, or that they believe that
the
> thread discussing this document is enough to call consensus...or something
> to that effect.
I did consider the emails you pointed to as having adequately advised the
WG of the proposed change and invited discussion and/or objection. I did also
get a private email response pointing to the 2015 decisions you noted but not
objecting to the proposed status change. I discussed with Stephen (co-chair)
and Terry (AD) who both indicated they were satisfied with the lack of
objection to my emails. It is my belief that members of the WG are very, very
aware (many still bear deep scars) of the 2015 discussion. They are also aware
that the WG has been open to receiving other routing protocol profile proposals
for 2 years now, and that none has been received. Several people told me
privately they were glad the status was being changed so we could get this over
with (and that homenet was already in danger of being obsolete and losing
everyone if it couldn't move on). They didn't want to say *anything* on the
email thread, for fear that it might actually trigger re-opening the discussion
in all it's glory. There is a strong desire not to have that discussion again.
I do believe that, given the hyper-awareness of the 2015 discussion, the WG
knew what it was agreeing to (or not objecting to). I believe the WG is
knowingly saying it wants to move on. Naming and security need solutions, and
we need to be working on those.
But if you still think I need to explore this some more with the WG, I will.
Barbara
> [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_homenet_kiI7pIYfpgT2Qrfx1VBAwng7-
> 5FQY&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=LS5wCRK83QbSm0A7c-uQ50-sORylXeseG-
> zQI_D8ABU&s=3czWjkOM36nRroRWTFHYjcWEZF_WsTqCHLjLrGBRxmk&e=
> [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_homenet_5L5WYN14gDCamP7qlknJmW
> keU5M&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=LS5wCRK83QbSm0A7c-uQ50-sORylXeseG-
> zQI_D8ABU&s=TntrJlZrFtZU8GHp86i_BfjU5BPtSn5lqHwDVSEHfv0&e=
> [3] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__mailarchive.ietf.org_arch_msg_homenet_35EU8oBr8hunvvSRYUStypZI
> PVU&d=DwIDaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=LoGzhC-
> 8sc8SY8Tq4vrfog&m=LS5wCRK83QbSm0A7c-uQ50-sORylXeseG-
> zQI_D8ABU&s=8kr7ZyZhA8zZEKfNDbVouzU-BmWT-t_WOgi7WcZKYkM&e=
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) I think that this document walks a fine line when Normatively
referring to
> Appendix A in rfc6126bis given that it is an informative appendix. In
general,
> it does a good job at it -- I do, however, have one nit: "The algorithm
> described in Appendix A of RFC 6126bis MAY be used." I think that
changing
> that to something non-normative would be good, perhaps something like
> "Appendix
> A provides an example of an algorithm..." or simply s/MAY/may
>
> (2) This reminds me; please use rfc8174 template (for Normative language).
>
> (3) The Non-requirements sections (2.2/3.2) are confusing to me. Maybe
it's
> the "negative logic"...
>
> (3.1) What do these non-requirements represent? Are they requirements
> that
> were considered at some point, but discarded? Using rfc2119 language adds
> to
> the confusion -- consider describing these non-requirements not using it.
>
> NR2, for example, is worded as a requirement that was considered, and the
> rationale explains why not: an "implementation of Babel MAY include
> support for
> other extensions"...this is not a requirement because "with the exception
of
> source-specific routing, no extensions are required". Ok.
>
> (3.2) Are implementers to interpret that the converse is true/expected?
In
> the
> case of NR2, is a true interpretation that implementations SHOULD NOT
> include
> support for other extensions? IOW, while the option of other extensions
is
> not
> a requirement, is not having them one?
>
> (3.3) The non-requirements in §3.2 seem a lot more confusing to me:
>
> (3.3.1) NR3 -- The text says that the requirement not considered
> (non-requirement) is such that "an HNCP node that receives a DHCPv6 prefix
> delegation MAY announce a non-specific IPv6 default route", but the
> rationale
> says that "announcing an additional non-specific route is allowed". I'm
> confused. Is announcing the additional route ok, or not? Is it ok to
assume
> that optionally advertising the additional route is ok? If it's allowed,
then
> why is this a non-requirement?
>
> (3.3.2) For NR4, is the non-requirement, i.e. one that was not considered,
> that
> the source-specific route SHOULD NOT be announced? This piece is also
> confusing to me because the rationale says (at least the way I read it)
that it
> may be ok to advertise. It seems to me that the text is saying that in
fact
> the route SHOULD NOT (or even MUST NOT be announced)...which brings
> me to the
> question: what is the requirement that was not considered? What am I
> missing?
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
