Use of the OSPF-MANET Interface in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks
draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or-04

[Ballot discuss]


Just a DISCUSS-DISCUSS for the AD/shepherd/chairs,
probably nothing for the authors to do. The writeup says
that there were discussions on the list. Since the IPR
declaration looked a little late, I took a look at the
archive but didn't see any dicussion.  Did I just miss
that?  I did see that the IPR declaration happened after
WGLC, but didn't see any discussion of the content of the
draft, nor of the IPR, neither before nor after the WGLC.
There was discussion of IPR on another, possibly related,
draft and maybe that discussion also covered this, or
maybe it happened in WG meetings, but its not clear to me.
Can you clarify?

[Ballot comment]
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.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that, upon approval of this document, there are no IANA Actions that need completion. IANA requests that the IANA Considerations section of the document remain in place upon publication.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of the OSPF-MANET Interface in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'Use of the OSPF-MANET Interface in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks'
  as Experimental RFC

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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-12-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document describes the use of the OSPF-MANET interface in
  single-hop broadcast networks.  It includes a mechanism to
  dynamically determine the presence of such a network and specific
  operational considerations due to its nature.

  This document updates RFC5820.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-or/ballot/


The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2201/

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in
the title page header?

    Experimental.
   
    As an update of RFC5820, an Experimental RFC, it's justified to
    categorize this draft as Experimental.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary

    This draft describes how to simplify/optimize OSPF-MANET interface
    operation, originally specified in RFC5820, in single-hop broadcast
    networks.
   
    Working Group Summary

    The initial draft was presented to IETF about two years ago, and
    there were some comments/discussion on email alias at that time.
    There have been no further discussions since then.

    Document Quality

    The document has gone through several WG review cycles and
    revisions. Comments were received from some WG members. To the best
    of my knowledge, there are no implementations. 

    Personnel     

    Yi Yang is the document shepherd and Stewart Bryant is the
    responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

    I was asked by OSPF WG chair to review the document as the Document
    Shepherd. I read through the document, tracked the discussion on
    email alias, and communicated with authors. I believe the document
    is ready for publication.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    No.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

    No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the interested community has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance
the document, detail those concerns here.

  None.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  Yes. 

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.   

  Yes - IPR disclosure filed. Updated from RFC 5820.

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2201/



(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals,
with others being silent, or does the interested community as a whole
understand and agree with it?

  There is no opposition to the draft. Those who understand
  the MANET use cases, feel this is a viable application to optimize
  MANET operations in single-hop broadcast networks.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  All applicable idnits errors and warnings have been resolved.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  Not applicable.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

    No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing
RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the
abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed
in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of
the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs
is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why
the interested community considers it unnecessary.

    No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

    This document doesn't require any IANA actions.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

    None. 


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

    Not Applicable.