Hi Abdussalam,
Thank you for your review comments on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt
I see seven separate points raised in separate emails. Can you confirm that this
is the totality of your comments.
I also note that the seventh email was sent to only the IESG. May I have your
permission to share this email with the document authors.
Thanks,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:iesg-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 22 August 2012 23:01
To: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (The Optimized Link
State
Routing Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard
Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012
Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 22/08/2012
Reviewer Comment AB7: Comments on text in document history [*].
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/history/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A key difference between RFC3626 and OLSRv2 is the introduction of
support for link metrics. An individual draft
(draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-00) was submitted in 2007, discussing
the design options, culminating in 2010 with
draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-05 documenting Working Group consensus
on this matter. Metrics support was, then, folded into OLSRv2.
AB> the reviewer thinks the difference is that OLSRv2 is a metric base
router that uses NHDP and RFC5444 packets which are general MANET
interface protocol and general MANET packet format respectively.
OLSRv2 is applicable for more scenarios and routers that are
constraint devices.
This version of OLSRv2 was given a one month WGLC, so as to ensure
sufficient time to review the document.
AB> my comments within the period was not considered by the authors
and don't see any consensus from the WG.
There was an issue concerning the differences between the -14 and -15
revisions of the document, brought up by one WG member. The consensus
opinion from the WG is that the document should proceed, without
additional edits.
AB> yes there was a new version update after my comments and
discussion with the authors, but still not happy with the outcome.
Best Regards
AB
+++++++++++++++++
The end of my comments (the comments were 7 including this, two only
for the IESG and one addition for only IEFT).
========================================================
On 7/29/12, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG
(manet) to consider the following document:
- 'The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2'
<draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> 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
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-08-22. Exceptionally,
comments may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This last call
period has been extended to handle the fact that it spans the IETF-84
meeting.
This last call is being re-initiated to include a notice that this document
includes a normative down reference to an Informational RFC:
RFC5148, "Jitter considerations in MANETs".
Abstract
This specification describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State
Routing (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs).
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.