Skip to main content

Multi-hop Ad Hoc Wireless Communication

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
04 (System) Notify list changed from,, to (None)
04 (System) Document has expired
04 Emmanuel Baccelli New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-04.txt
03 (System) Document has expired
03 Emmanuel Baccelli New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-03.txt
02 (System) Document has expired
02 Charles Perkins New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-02.txt
01 (System) Document has expired
01 (System) State changed to Dead from AD is watching
01 Brian Haberman State changed to AD is watching from AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed
01 Brian Haberman State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation
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?


(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.

    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?


(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.


(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.


(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.


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

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be

  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?


(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?


(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.


(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.


(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.


(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.

01 Brian Haberman State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
01 Brian Haberman Note added 'Charlie Perkins ( is the document shepherd.'
01 Brian Haberman Stream changed to IETF
01 Brian Haberman Intended Status changed to Informational
01 Brian Haberman IESG process started in state Publication Requested
01 Charles Perkins New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-01.txt
00 (System) New version available: draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-00.txt