From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x632.google.com (mail-ej1-x632.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::632]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 107843B29D for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:47:31 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-ej1-x632.google.com with SMTP id a23so3422029eju.3 for ; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:47:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AXSKFm9oGF8lpLyWR9QrRTkNjYQvdeFAhc9O+vWAUt0=; b=d4fT31Rj7T7+d23Uz0kN8RaWbJVDYAdboAlCxkfaaBmD6nbpS9hd/BYm1OlPdw11Ok LgJuKHjhZnbcYTIztbka2kVm/nsTnXggLD3Ix4Re/ZGGKMiKdmbjI3tdwqUItYZH6sZ9 9fSZeoX1OvbG/0+OVGonafVTRP4itSj/ToqwdzSg0+h6VOkwPHqA89tE+p6+2qctvYuT IVhE6ygo1WjcXYZtkKlPGUHfGF4H3s6NDFF2jX3wNMkpEIwTd/JbVejm8Ur0eVQDWmNk p4MFtwNxsmkRWnblIPxA65+WFbZkMF2F3yLBZKTK7Y0N70OQnv7TlDSIomfEPphRv50B xAdA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AXSKFm9oGF8lpLyWR9QrRTkNjYQvdeFAhc9O+vWAUt0=; b=FCviP104ESiGdiQFnQt1AuPDvioxQ3QjKQETz9k2sLN0Oo9n0R8R/5Q7vp2U00BM4O k0tOi7ecm8fy32ARt8wBc5BvT9yEFu7k/FLW4JouVfLp5ws9EeonY8jMmVbr/NjoWwfN 9H8G/UBw2uLBVLgwFbX4a+3sTIMp9x2K4KnbUE0SYb+hf53o58RuAfGSRN4pJ2YIMF3r zaM1osE/lb/lkAK0gFB2i4Qc9mJW3EvtfNFw4TcmMM38wmrQm9G2dxlpVNtRdtz+Y6bf EAZT6vXtBS1lWwa2QNBY/zIKPlXqt1FaoeQ6/wn9k0pzvrEojYhUqTyJggt1uouWBLPs iucA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530vvAY4kJNYxsUWiH+TZ6+PLNEVFawuHfTsg3yF+/MKTDRnMtt6 StYYH+SVC0su2PaIBIKnrP9yahSmPvS6eCyjCerBkaDnSyU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIXqHvG+d7QNpXNE6k9yMkDBjZrtu8ccdbehfLYCUhvx/bGzhUUQZEq6KD25aQ/LlIH8x4M76e22WKeVtRPJo= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:d9c4:b0:6cc:ecbd:3667 with SMTP id qk4-20020a170906d9c400b006ccecbd3667mr567380ejb.645.1645062449749; Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:47:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <164506229993.5818.3014313795092972897@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <164506229993.5818.3014313795092972897@ietfa.amsl.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:47:18 -0800 Message-ID: To: cerowrt-devel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] Fwd: [babel] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 01:47:31 -0000 I'm not really sure what else babel needs but this extension looks good. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: John Scudder via Datatracker Date: Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:45 PM Subject: [babel] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07: (with COMMENT) To: The IESG Cc: , , , John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6-07: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-babel-v4viav6/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this highly readable and useful document. Regarding the distaste for the dummy 192.0.0.8 address, it seems to me that this is a case of perfect as the enemy of good. A conflict-averse pragmatis= t, foreseeing the objection, might simply have left Section 3 out of the docum= ent. I don=E2=80=99t think that would have been a better outcome. I note further= more that the 192.0.0.8 mechanism isn=E2=80=99t even being specified here =E2=80=94 i= t=E2=80=99s specced in RFC 7600, and is just offered as an implementation option here. _______________________________________________ babel mailing list babel@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel --=20 I tried to build a better future, a few times: https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC