The Dynamic Source Routing Protocol (DSR) for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks for IPv4
draft-ietf-manet-dsr-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
10 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Margaret Wasserman |
2012-08-22
|
10 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Abstain position for Brian Carpenter |
2012-08-22
|
10 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2006-10-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from RFC-Ed-Ack |
2006-10-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from In Progress |
2006-10-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2006-10-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2006-10-23
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2006-10-03
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2006-05-31
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2006-05-30
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-05-30
|
10 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-05-30
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-05-30
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed by Bill Fenner |
2006-05-25
|
10 | Cullen Jennings | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Cullen Jennings by Cullen Jennings |
2006-05-15
|
10 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] I decided to change my DISCUSS to ABSTAIN. I don't understand why the authors have been unresponsive but since it's over a year, … [Ballot comment] I decided to change my DISCUSS to ABSTAIN. I don't understand why the authors have been unresponsive but since it's over a year, let's be done with it, since it's Experimental anyway. This draft applies to IPv4 only. The title should say that by adding "using IPv4" to the end, or something like that. Furthermore, the text states that "... and operation of DSR with IPv6 [7], are covered in other documents." [7] is only a reference to the basic IPv6 spec. I'd expect to see at least a "work in progress" reference to substantive work on DSR for IPv6, if the quoted statement is correct. |
2006-05-15
|
10 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Brian Carpenter has been changed to Abstain from Discuss by Brian Carpenter |
2006-05-15
|
10 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot comment] I decided to change my DISCUSS to ABSTAIN. I don't understand why the authors have been unresponsive but since it's over a year, … [Ballot comment] I decided to change my DISCUSS to ABSTAIN. I don't understand why the authors have been unresponsive but since it's over a year, let's be done with it, since it's Experimental anyway. This draft applies to IPv4 only. The title should say that by adding "using IPv4" to the end, or something like that. Furthermore, the text states that "... and operation of DSR with IPv6 [7], are covered in other documents." [7] is only a reference to the basic IPv6 spec. I'd expect to see at least a "work in progress" reference to substantive work on DSR for IPv6, if the quoted statement is correct. |
2006-04-28
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Subject: RE: Proposed RFC Editor Note for draft-ietf-manet-dsr Date: Tue, Apr 25 12:40:22 To: dmaltz@microsoft.com Cc: dbj@cs.rice.edu yihchun@cs.cmu.edu macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil idc@cs.ucsb.edu >> OLD (near the end … Subject: RE: Proposed RFC Editor Note for draft-ietf-manet-dsr Date: Tue, Apr 25 12:40:22 To: dmaltz@microsoft.com Cc: dbj@cs.rice.edu yihchun@cs.cmu.edu macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil idc@cs.ucsb.edu >> OLD (near the end of section 1, change "are" to "will be"): >> NEW: >> >> Advanced, optional features, such as Quality of Service >> (QoS) support >> and efficient multicast routing, and operation of DSR with >> IPv6 [7], >> will be covered in other documents. > >This seems like a strange fix. There are already other documents >describing these features: academic papers and internet-drafts. They're >not RFCs, granted, but they do exist. Would a better fix be to include >citations to those other documents? I'll grant you that those docs >might be considered "informative" rather than "normative". If you'd rather do it this way, please supply the references and the text for the document, preferably in the RFC-Editor's OLD:/NEW: style. The original request was for references to them, and Dave had suggested just changing the wording so it didn't sound like a reference was needed. Bill |
2006-03-30
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Change Notice email list have been change to <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil>, <ian.chakeres@gmail.com>, dbj@cs.rice.edu from <macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil>, <idc@cs.ucsb.edu>, dbj@cs.rice.edu |
2006-01-12
|
10 | Bill Fenner | I put the proposed RFC Editor note in the writeup; just have to get buy-in from the authors Subject: Proposed RFC Editor Note for draft-ietf-manet-dsr … I put the proposed RFC Editor note in the writeup; just have to get buy-in from the authors Subject: Proposed RFC Editor Note for draft-ietf-manet-dsr Date: Wed, Jan 11 08:46:07 To: dbj@cs.rice.edu,dmaltz@cs.cmu.edu,yihchun@cs.cmu.edu Cc: macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil,idc@cs.ucsb.edu |
2005-11-10
|
10 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Margaret Wasserman |
2005-07-31
|
10 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot discuss] There are at least three technical issue that I have with the DSR document: (1) It invents a new source routing header, instead … [Ballot discuss] There are at least three technical issue that I have with the DSR document: (1) It invents a new source routing header, instead of using the one that we already have. (2) It makes several statements that I think are technically incorrect regarding 802.11 networks. Has it been reviewed by Bernard Aboba and/or any IEEE contacts? (3) It makes statements about behavior of the IP and ARP protocols that I am not sure reflect existing standards/implementation. I think you might have to build a custom IP/ARP implementation to implement manet/-dsr which seems odd for something that refers to itself as a routing protocol. If necessary, I can produce a specific list of the sections that I am concerned about, but it won't be a short list. Perhaps a better approach would be to add an IESG note explaining why it is being published and stating that parts of this protocol are not consistent with the Internet architecture or existing IETF protocols, and that we don't recommend deployment? What do you think? |
2005-06-30
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Bill Fenner |
2005-06-24
|
10 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot discuss] This document was on an IESG telechat while I was on vacation, and I am just reviewing it now in an effort to … [Ballot discuss] This document was on an IESG telechat while I was on vacation, and I am just reviewing it now in an effort to educate myself about the proposed AUTOCONF WG. I am about 1/2 way through reviewing the draft and, unfortunately, I have found some issues with this draft that may be substantive and should be discussed before it is published. I also think that this draft is significant enough that I'd like to get it reviewed by some other Internet area experts. I apologize for this non-specific discuss, and I will attempt to complete my review and summarize the significant issues as soon as possible. |
2005-06-24
|
10 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Margaret Wasserman has been changed to Discuss from Undefined by Margaret Wasserman |
2005-06-23
|
10 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2005-05-26
|
10 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Allison Mankin has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Allison Mankin |
2005-04-26
|
10 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2005-04-25 |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot discuss] Not sure if this covered so: What did we do for AODV and OLSR? we should go with the Experimental protocol number policy … [Ballot discuss] Not sure if this covered so: What did we do for AODV and OLSR? we should go with the Experimental protocol number policy as the rule now. See IANA Considerations. Clearly assign this one to 253 or 254. |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Allison Mankin | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Allison Mankin |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Follow-up Comments: Ack the note to reassign IP Protocol 48 to DSR. |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Comments: 10. IANA Considerations Upon approval of this document the IANA will assign a signle IP protocol number from the following registry: Does the … IANA Comments: 10. IANA Considerations Upon approval of this document the IANA will assign a signle IP protocol number from the following registry: Does the IANA need to do anything with the "No Next Header"? Possibly change the reference? In which registry can this be found? We understand that new DSR options (for use in the DSR Options header) and additional new DSR options are defined in this document. The IANA Considerations section could be a little more clear on the request for assignments. An expert will also need to be named. |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2005-04-25
|
10 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2005-04-25
|
10 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2005-04-22
|
10 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Undefined by Ted Hardie |
2005-04-22
|
10 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot comment] We assume that a node receiving a corrupted packet can detect the error and discard the packet. Is this "receipt" as in … [Ballot comment] We assume that a node receiving a corrupted packet can detect the error and discard the packet. Is this "receipt" as in end-point receipt, or nodes along the route receiving then discarding the packet? I am assuming that "end-point receipt" is meant here--if not, some clarification may be in order. Comments below do not anticipate any change in the document. Since the document is going for experimental, it might be useful to examine at what rate routes "overheard" are used. Depending on the rate of change and the available resources, it seems like it may be optimal in some circumstances to avoid learning overheard routes. I think it would also be valuable to test the routes used in "Salvaged" packets against the case in which the node originating the packet also had multiple routes to see if a pattern emerges in which salvaged packets had significantly better or worse routes than the alternate routes available at the origin. |
2005-04-22
|
10 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Undefined, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2005-04-21
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The document says that the IPv4 address is assigned by any means, including DHCP. Is there any work on the use of … [Ballot discuss] The document says that the IPv4 address is assigned by any means, including DHCP. Is there any work on the use of DHCP in an ad hoc network? DHCP implies an administrator, and ad hoc networks do not necessarily have administrators. |
2005-04-21
|
10 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Russ Housley by Russ Housley |
2005-04-21
|
10 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] This draft applies to IPv4 only. The title should say that by adding "using IPv4" to the end, or something like that. Furthermore, … [Ballot discuss] This draft applies to IPv4 only. The title should say that by adding "using IPv4" to the end, or something like that. Furthermore, the text states that "... and operation of DSR with IPv6 [7], are covered in other documents." [7] is only a reference to the basic IPv6 spec. I'd expect to see at least a "work in progress" reference to substantive work on DSR for IPv6, if the quoted statement is correct. |
2005-04-21
|
10 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot discuss] This draft applies to IPv4 only. The title should say that by adding "using IPv4" to the end, or something like that. Furthermore, … [Ballot discuss] This draft applies to IPv4 only. The title should say that by adding "using IPv4" to the end, or something like that. Furthermore, the text states that "... and operation of DSR with IPv6 [7], are covered in other documents." [7] is only a reference to the basic IPv6 spec. I'd expect to see at least a "work in progress" reference to substantive work on DSR for IPv6, if the quoted statement is correct. |
2005-04-21
|
10 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2005-04-20
|
10 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot comment] References should definitely be split normative/informative. |
2005-04-20
|
10 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2005-04-19
|
10 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Bill Fenner |
2005-04-19
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Ballot has been issued by Bill Fenner |
2005-04-19
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-04-19
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup by Bill Fenner |
2005-04-19
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Note: this is one of the four MANET protocols that's being publishes as experimental as part of moving forward with a standards-track protocol. This took … Note: this is one of the four MANET protocols that's being publishes as experimental as part of moving forward with a standards-track protocol. This took longer in AD review than the others (mostly my fault); meanwhile the others have been published as RFCs 3561, 3626, and 3684. |
2005-04-19
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2005-04-25 by Bill Fenner |
2005-04-08
|
10 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call by system |
2005-04-01
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2005-03-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2005-03-25
|
10 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2005-03-24
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Last Call was requested by Bill Fenner |
2005-03-24
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::External Party by Bill Fenner |
2005-03-24
|
10 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-03-24
|
10 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-03-24
|
10 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-03-09
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Change Notice email list have been change to , , dbj@cs.rice.edu from , |
2005-03-09
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Bill Fenner |
2005-03-09
|
10 | Bill Fenner | I've reviewed the changes, and I'm happy with the result, except that since it's going for Experimental I think the IP Protocol number usage should … I've reviewed the changes, and I'm happy with the result, except that since it's going for Experimental I think the IP Protocol number usage should be as described in RFC 3692 -- basically, it must be configurable by the deployer, but values 253 and 254 have been reserved for experiments using IP protocols. If you feel that you can't use this process, it is possible to assign an IP protocol number via IESG Approval (see RFC 2780 section 4.3 for the requirements); I would expect a fair amount of justification will be requested since the RFC 3692 process was created for exactly this reason. |
2005-03-09
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Change Notice email list have been change to , from , |
2004-08-14
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation::AD Followup from AD Evaluation::External Party by Bill Fenner |
2004-08-14
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Note field has been cleared by Bill Fenner |
2004-08-14
|
10 | Bill Fenner | My odd comments about the I-D update were because of a synchronization problem - the system told me a new I-D was available so I … My odd comments about the I-D update were because of a synchronization problem - the system told me a new I-D was available so I looked at the latest version that I had, which ended up being -09; I didn't notice that the system had sent the notification before the actual new I-D was available. I will review the changes. |
2004-07-22
|
10 | Bill Fenner | This new version updates the submission date from 24 Feb 2003 to 15 April 2003, and the expiration date from 24 August 2003 to 15 … This new version updates the submission date from 24 Feb 2003 to 15 April 2003, and the expiration date from 24 August 2003 to 15 October 2003, and nothing else. Given that it appeared in July 2004, I am vaguely mystified as to the point of submitting a new version, especially with such odd dates. |
2004-07-22
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-10.txt |
2004-01-29
|
10 | Bill Fenner | [Note]: 'Waiting for authors to come back based on AD review comments from November 2003' added by Bill Fenner |
2004-01-29
|
10 | Bill Fenner | State Changes to AD Evaluation::External Party from AD Evaluation by Bill Fenner |
2004-01-29
|
10 | Bill Fenner | To: dbj@cs.rice.edu dmaltz@cs.cmu.edu yihchun@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Initial AD-review comments on DSR Cc: zinin@psg.com corson@flarion.com macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil fenner@research.att.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:53:04 -0800 Folks, Below … To: dbj@cs.rice.edu dmaltz@cs.cmu.edu yihchun@cs.cmu.edu Subject: Initial AD-review comments on DSR Cc: zinin@psg.com corson@flarion.com macker@itd.nrl.navy.mil fenner@research.att.com Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:53:04 -0800 Folks, Below are my initial AD-review comments on DSR, mostly phrased as questions. As I mentioned to David in Minneapolis, I've been avoiding sending them because I am concerned that some of them are stupid questions and I was hoping that I could clear them up by further reading of the spec. However, as David pointed out, you could help me understand what I got wrong and it's ridiculous to have gone so many months without any feedback. I apologize for taking so long to get these comments back to you. Bill How does IP->MAC resolution work? Seems as though some of it could be piggybacked on the route discovery, but there's no mention of this. Does it do ARP? In section 3.1, the timers are kind of underspecified; "..has recently seen..", "..for some timeout period", "MUST limit the rate" - unclear if this is further specified somewhere else. In 3.3.4, I don't know if it's clear what to put in the TTL field for "no hop limit". In 3.4.1, I don't understand why TTL isn't enough to prevent a salvaging loop and the salvage counter is required. In 3.5.1, what's the TTL used for in the flow table? In 3.5.6, what's the expected hop count? In 3.5.7, what's an adjusted TTL? Section 8.2.3 doesn't refer back to section 3.3.3 so it's not clear exactly how the implosion-prevention delay fits in here. Strictly implementiong from 8.2.3 doesn't seem to include the random delay so I'm concerned that the implosion prevention would get missed since it's so long ago. In particular, even though I read linearly through the spec, when I got to 8.2.3 I wrote down a note about multiple nodes decapsulating the same packet in a dense network, even though this would be prevented if the delay in section 3.3.3 was inserted in the right place in the algorithm in 8.2.3 . This is a symptom of what I felt was a common theme in the spec - a feature was introduced and described in a standalone section but not propagated through the rest of the spec. Another example of this latter concern is section 8.4. It describes when to insert the special addresses 127.0.0.1 and 127.0.0.2 into the route, but there is no mention of what to do when processing a route that contains these special addresses, even though the presence of these special addresses should change which of the categories laid out at the beginning of section 3.3.1 the caching node should consider for this route. Section 8.5 should be more clear about fragmentation and encapsulation, e.g. specifying the size of the fragments (outgoing MTU minus ip-ip header and DSR options header length?) and the source/destination addresses to use in the outer packet. A reference to RFC 2003 might also help? For IP protocol number assignments: 1. Can you handle only having one, since you can tell the flow state and options headers apart with the F bit? 2. Can you use the mechanisms described in draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-04.txt ? The IANA considerations section needs to specify a policy for DSR options assignments (i.e., how does IANA decide whether or not to grant a request for a new DSR option?). See RFC 2434 for some possibilities. I'm afraid that I skipped over some of my questions on the flow state extension and on packet salvaging because I don't understand them well enough to formulate the question. I will try to reread the document to further my understanding. |
2003-10-14
|
10 | Alex Zinin | Bill reviewed the doc, has comments. Will write them down. |
2003-08-07
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Alex asked me to move this forward. I thought I took responsibility for it in the tracker quite some time ago, sorry for the delay. |
2003-08-07
|
10 | Bill Fenner | Shepherding AD has been changed to Bill Fenner from Alex Zinin |
2003-06-06
|
10 | Alex Zinin | Not published yet, back to AD eval. |
2003-06-06
|
10 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to AD Evaluation from RFC Published by Zinin, Alex |
2003-06-06
|
10 | Natalia Syracuse | State Changes to RFC Published from AD Evaluation by Syracuse, Natalia |
2003-06-05
|
10 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to AD Evaluation from AD is watching by Zinin, Alex |
2003-04-16
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-09.txt |
2003-03-06
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-08.txt |
2002-11-21
|
10 | Alex Zinin | State Changes to AD is watching from Publication Requested by Zinin, Alex |
2002-04-11
|
10 | (System) | DSR has not been submitted to the IESG yet. |
2002-04-11
|
10 | (System) | State Changes to Pre AD Evaluation from Reading List … State Changes to Pre AD Evaluation from Reading List by IESG Member |
2002-02-22
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-07.txt |
2001-11-30
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-06.txt |
2001-03-08
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-05.txt |
2000-11-22
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-04.txt |
1999-10-28
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-03.txt |
1999-06-29
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-02.txt |
1999-01-05
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-01.txt |
1998-03-18
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-manet-dsr-00.txt |