Multi-hop Ad Hoc Wireless Communication
draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-04
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
04 | (System) | Notify list changed from Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr, charlie.perkins@huawei.com, draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-03-23
|
04 | (System) | Document has expired |
2014-09-12
|
04 | Emmanuel Baccelli | New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-04.txt |
2014-09-04
|
03 | (System) | Document has expired |
2014-03-03
|
03 | Emmanuel Baccelli | New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-03.txt |
2014-01-12
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2013-07-11
|
02 | Charles Perkins | New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-02.txt |
2013-01-03
|
01 | (System) | Document has expired |
2013-01-03
|
01 | (System) | State changed to Dead from AD is watching |
2013-01-02
|
01 | Brian Haberman | State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed |
2012-06-13
|
01 | Brian Haberman | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation |
2012-06-07
|
01 | Brian Haberman | (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? … (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? Informational (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 document describes some characteristics of communication between nodes in a multi-hop ad hoc wireless network. Protocol engineers and system analysts involved with designing solutions for such networks must maintain awareness of these characteristics. Working Group Summary The only lingering comment on the document is that it could be complemented by a specification of how the observed characteristics would relate to a link or subnet model, beyond RFC 5889. A complementary draft tackling this subject may be issued eventually. Document Quality The document has gone through several review cycles and revisions within the AUTOCONF WG, while the latter was active. Personnel Brian Haberman is the sponsor 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. The document has gone through several review cycles and revisions within the AUTOCONF WG, while the latter was active. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? None. (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. No. (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 consensus behind the content of this draft. This document may eventually be complemented by another draft specifying how the observed characteristics would relate to a link or subnet model, beyond RFC 5889. (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 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). Not Applicable. (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. |
2012-06-07
|
01 | Brian Haberman | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-06-06
|
01 | Brian Haberman | Note added 'Charlie Perkins (charlie.perkins@huawei.com) is the document shepherd.' |
2012-06-06
|
01 | Brian Haberman | Stream changed to IETF |
2012-06-06
|
01 | Brian Haberman | Intended Status changed to Informational |
2012-06-06
|
01 | Brian Haberman | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-05-23
|
01 | Charles Perkins | New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-01.txt |
2011-11-23
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-00.txt |