Directional Airtime Metric Based on Packet Sequence Numbers for Optimized Link State Routing Version 2 (OLSRv2)
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-12

- section 1, last paragraph:
The first part of this paragraph sounds like justification for making this standards track. It would be useful to discuss why this is experimental.  Is there an expectation some version of this may be republished in the standards track in the future? Is there a need for deployment experience prior to standardization?

Editorial Comments:

- Abstract:
Please expand OLSRv2 on first mention in abstract. (In addition to the existing expansion in the body.)

- section 4, 1st paragraph:
s/metric/metrics

Liushucheng (Will) performed the opsdir review.

This is just a comment as the text is mostly there, but I feel like it could be stated more clearly...

In the Security considerations section, the first part of the discussion could call out "Denial of Service" attacks explicitly in addition to the description that is included that describes altering traffic patterns.  I would recommend making this a distinct paragraph for readability.

The next part of the security considerations section (starts with the last sentence of the first paragraph) seems it could also be a result of the lack of integrity protections on this measurement technique.  It might help to state that first and that active attacks may result as a consequence, leaving in the active attacks you already describe and the solution already included starting with the second sentence of the second paragraph.  If that's not the case, please just let me know why.

How is warning about MiTM attacks out-of-scope?  It seems these are possible, and even mentioned with rogue routers.  Wouldn't it be easier to state that without session encryption, MiTM is a threat?  If this is acknowledged, then at least the consideration is there for the reader to understand.  Addressing the threat may be out-of-scope, but warning about it shouldn't be.  This last comment is much closer to a discuss, so I'd appreciate a response.

Thank you!

I agree with Kathleen's "Close to a Discuss" on warning about MitM attacks. I'm fine with actually addressing the attacks being out of scope, as I believe Kathleen is.

- General: This seems mostly to be an abstract metric that could be
re-used e.g. in ROLL or HOMENET (if it's good:-) but with
OLSR-specific text and concepts mixed in here and there.  It'd have
been better were it possible to separate the abstract metric from
the OLSR-specifics to make the former easier to re-use later. It's
fine if determining if that would be useful is a part of the
experiment, but it might be good to mention it here.

- Section 6: In particular "fraction of the loss rate" isn't clear
to me, but maybe that's fine and it's known term of art to folks who
do metrics.

- Section 11: Wrt the MitM comments from other ADs - one possiblity
here might be to recommend that protocols making use of this metric
should be cognizant of, and include mitigtions for, MitM attacks of
this kind. (Just a suggestion, feel free to ignore if you prefer.) 

- Thanks for handling the secdir review [1] - I think that all the
issues there were resolved, but do say if some still need a bit
more chatting.

   [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06185.html