I consulted with the writer of this email about copying to the IETF list and he
asked the IESG to decide. I believe that it is helpful that technical comments
be aired in public, therefore I am forwarding an edited version of his email.
Authors, please include this in the responses that you will be generating.
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.