Skip to main content

Routing Multipoint Relay Optimization for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization-01

Yes

(Adrian Farrel)

No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -00) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-24) Unknown
Version -01 resolves the 2119-key-word issue; thanks for dealing with that.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-19 for -00) Unknown
- I read multiple times these sentences, and I'm not sure what they mean:

   Note that an implementation using this optimization is not strictly
   compliant with the current specification [OLSRv2], ...

   This specification updates [OLSRv2] to specify that an implementation
   using this optimization is compliant with the protocol OLSRv2.


- I agree with Barry's DISCUSS

- I Would appreciate if you would expand MPRs (multipoint relays) earlier in the draft.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-19 for -00) Unknown
Since other ADs have already raised the issues I spotted with this document, I will simply point out that the MPR acronym needs to be expanded and should not appear in the Abstract.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00) Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-15 for -00) Unknown
These two statements seem in conflict:

   A set of routing MPRs created as specified in [OLSRv2] MAY be
   optimized in the following manner.

[...]

   It is RECOMMENDED that all OLSRv2 routers use this optimization.

The first indicates that the optimization is purely an option. The second indicates that it is a requirement with certain exceptions that may exist. Which do you mean? If the former, I'd suggest just getting rid of both of the 2119 terms (use "can" instead of "MAY" and "suggested" instead of "RECOMMENDED"), since it's only a suggestion. If the latter, change the "MAY" to a "SHOULD".
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-19 for -00) Unknown
I'm No Objection, and trusting that the fuzziness other ADs are asking about will get unfuzzed ...
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00) Unknown

                            
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -00) Unknown

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-02-19 for -00) Unknown
Section 3, first paragraph:

   include it.  However inclusion of this optimization is advised, it
   can, in some cases, create smaller and fewer messages, without ever
   having the opposite effect.

This is nitpicky, but I wish you'd use some conjunction other than a comma between "advised" and "it" on the first line, or else make it two sentences.