From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa1-x2c.google.com (mail-oa1-x2c.google.com [IPv6:2001:4860:4864:20::2c]) (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 3A2373B29D for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 09:58:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oa1-x2c.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-278279a3a39so2518502fac.0 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 06:58:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1726581493; x=1727186293; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+5oqzPTmibQXkPkshDWo5TLT8gI2hEbAT9fA3JTTtlI=; b=iV834P//qwPcwy02zphlY41sWqs67Wr9+1pXn3UeQ72n6ozu2IyIzE5O71rcjcKmHP NwUVAuKTlvAdSAxpInghrTaAXEtkFHuyy0GTnfP7ZKuKN2C1ynkWKNE8/Urqx10NxAHZ 4vLu9MhgaYTKT6BKmy5MWluABoh0CSv/VJJkpdSwIZFNlnRRVIsIq/6cThe1UeIlSpdw xAvcsGeUGnx8yaAaqSYERtt8mwSHA+jUJu4DmcI8CSIntHqI/MsVGlKEymwj8XbNLx1g 6+EKUpX+B4Yjwep/kmupSE0bc4NCEteD1zkRMV5t889O9kyxSEeYBBwkabd4lcKXbHXF Rs7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726581493; x=1727186293; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+5oqzPTmibQXkPkshDWo5TLT8gI2hEbAT9fA3JTTtlI=; b=fsc5D3j+uzwW20wgMxu8dkzse8UVt7rQ28+xcjgKiCqtMiBdlyACzjQZ4FQbibWUHU TkS/DcmdowCPCUc76j5VptM3BzjaE12WakLzKylCZvUvTfRsmNbCk6Gh7z4pYOcMpXxE oWyI2PNp7tTTF9lyGmfVdGENvQ91wAD9v3CAuU8est8XGf/ZUPFIRMZ8F6DtX1bkG2dK 7Xms53rsprOp+5c7PLkLeZh+o77UYZA55GiNfuLRRWwktjd3tK7JQuz7qBPH9yNJeZQ+ St9rrqIj/SVmaziElYTk056QAJJfOl0tAHgZZDaJVtis6HaprkgoeXsfA3/p5/dCLRZn tE3A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyhZKYdpVFcDoC3xqVvOYrkiy+NbnYeDscoasPqUfCxqIRwHiH3 nT3JTJPD93I9xXpHJdeVfJ3mfgbV1on7fyAA04pt/uogdmz5A2XUB+LKDG2j7v11306aFdhrVcm TEs1pxGQjIdXqSIPjkzylK+cXH1sGVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE3kWKI6AJnvw4WZ9lcNoCdp5lfE1hJT3+l3EdZzOYo8kCRQmlTmdKzm7eaP2DLfncTzGsWnMwVX6AnFj8JbOw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:56a9:b0:260:e36f:ef4f with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-27c3f0ed211mr10809750fac.3.1726581492733; Tue, 17 Sep 2024 06:58:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20240913191748.8EC933B874@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org> <871q1i5u27.wl-jch@irif.fr> In-Reply-To: <871q1i5u27.wl-jch@irif.fr> From: Dave Taht Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 06:57:58 -0700 Message-ID: To: Make-Wifi-fast Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008cdfe606225114bd" Subject: [Make-wifi-fast] Fwd: [babel] Re: RFC 9616 on Delay-Based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol X-BeenThere: make-wifi-fast@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 13:58:14 -0000 --0000000000008cdfe606225114bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Juliusz Chroboczek Date: Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 5:47=E2=80=AFAM Subject: [babel] Re: RFC 9616 on Delay-Based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol To: Cc: , Baptiste Jonglez > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. > > > RFC 9616 > > Title: Delay-Based Metric Extension for the > Babel Routing Protocol > Author: B. Jonglez, > J. Chroboczek > Status: Standards Track For those who weren't following: the reviewers forced me to rework this document quite a bit, and with hindsight they were right. The most notable change is that the second part (oscillation avoidance) has been rewritten in normative language. This makes it slightly more difficult to read (due to all the SHOULDs and MUSTs), but it makes it clear that the algorithm is ready and safe for deployment. I've done my best to imply that it's not the only possible algorithm, and that the first part (the packet format and RTT sampling) can be reused with other algorithms. Pascal Thubert (to whom thanks) coerced me into writing an applicability section, with me screaming and kicking. With hindsight, that was a good idea. (While I remain unconvinced by pure applicability RFCs, I now understand that having an applicability section in an RFC in an otherwise technical RFC is useful even when the applicability can easily be deduced from the rest of the document.) The one negative change is due to one AD insisting (in oh so many words!) that I'm not allowed to use the word "blackhole". I suppose that gravitational singularities are taboo in their culture. In case you're not a Babel fan (why?), this subprotocol is not specific to Babel, and could easily be adapted to any other distance-vector protocol, and with slightly more effort to a link-state protocol. I'm open to collaboration. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ babel mailing list -- babel@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to babel-leave@ietf.org --=20 Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos --0000000000008cdfe606225114bd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>
= Date: Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 5:47=E2=80=AFAM
Subject: [babel] Re: RFC 9616= on Delay-Based Metric Extension for the Babel Routing Protocol
To: <= ;babel@ietf.org>
Cc: <manet@ietf.org>, Baptiste Jonglez <<= a href=3D"mailto:baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org">baptiste@bitsofnetworks.org>


> A new Request for Comments is now available in= online RFC libraries.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0RFC 9616
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Title:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Delay-Base= d Metric Extension for the
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0Babel Routing Protocol
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Author:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0B. Jonglez= ,
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0J. Chroboczek
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Status:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Standards = Track

For those who weren't following: the reviewers forced me to rework this=
document quite a bit, and with hindsight they were right.

The most notable change is that the second part (oscillation avoidance)
has been rewritten in normative language.=C2=A0 This makes it slightly more=
difficult to read (due to all the SHOULDs and MUSTs), but it makes it
clear that the algorithm is ready and safe for deployment.=C2=A0 I've d= one my
best to imply that it's not the only possible algorithm, and that the first part (the packet format and RTT sampling) can be reused with other algorithms.

Pascal Thubert (to whom thanks) coerced me into writing an applicability section, with me screaming and kicking.=C2=A0 With hindsight, that was a go= od
idea.=C2=A0 (While I remain unconvinced by pure applicability RFCs, I now understand that having an applicability section in an RFC in an otherwise technical RFC is useful even when the applicability can easily be deduced from the rest of the document.)

The one negative change is due to one AD insisting (in oh so many words!) that I'm not allowed to use the word "blackhole".=C2=A0 I sup= pose that
gravitational singularities are taboo in their culture.

In case you're not a Babel fan (why?), this subprotocol is not specific= to
Babel, and could easily be adapted to any other distance-vector protocol, and with slightly more effort to a link-state protocol.=C2=A0 I'm open = to
collaboration.

-- Juliusz

_______________________________________________
babel mailing list -- b= abel@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to babel-leave@ietf.org


--
Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos
=
--0000000000008cdfe606225114bd--