Use of the OSPF-MANET Interface in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks
draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or-04
Yes
(Stewart Bryant)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-12-30)
Unknown
Thanks for the clear explanation of what you're doing and why -- it made it very easy to review this document.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-03)
Unknown
I agree with Barry's compliment. Easy to understand. As a comment - I'm looking at this text: 3. Single-Hop Network Operation The operation of the MANET interface doesn't change when implemented on a single-hop broadcast interface. However, the operation of some of the proposed enhancements can be simplified. Explicitly, the Overlapping Relay Discovery Process SHOULD NOT be executed and the A-bit SHOULD NOT be set by any of the nodes: the result is an empty set of Active Overlapping Relays. Are these SHOULD NOT 2119 keywords required for interoperability? The paragraph looks more like a statement saying "if you don't do these things, the result is an empty set of Active Overlapping Relays, and that simplifies operation". You might consider that, along with any other comments you receive.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown