Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks
draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-04

[Ballot comment]
I do not know enough about the technology to even know how the following might cause confusion to implementers, but I am utterly mystified by this sentence in section 2:

  o  AdjConnectivity SHOULD be equal to 2 (biconnected), MAY be equal
      to 1 (uniconnected), and SHOULD NOT be equal to 0 (full topology).

Read as 2119 terms: "AdjConnectivity must be set to 2 to avoid damage or interop problems, but there are special cases (unspecified here) where you might not do that. However, 1 is also a perfectly good value. That said, 0 must never be used, in order to avoid damage or interop problems, but there are special cases (unspecified here) where you might use 0, so long as you understand the implications." That sentence seems triply internally self-contradictory.

[Ballot comment]
This is a really minor nit, because I suspect anybody (other than me) reading this document already knows what an LSA is before they start, but the acronym is heavily used and never expanded.

[Ballot comment]
In 2.  Operation in a Single-Hop Broadcast Network

  When OSPF-MDR is used in a single-hop broadcast network, the
  following parameter settings and options (defined in [RFC5614])
  should be used:

  o  AdjConnectivity SHOULD be equal to 2 (biconnected), MAY be equal
      to 1 (uniconnected), and SHOULD NOT be equal to 0 (full topology).

Is there any guidance you can give about when the choice of 1 (uniconnected) would be appropriate?

I might also be curious about when the choice of 0 (full topology) would be appropriate, but let's start with 1 (uniconnected).

[Ballot comment]
Similarly to the Security Considerations ...

    5. Security Considerations
      This document describes the use of OSPF-MDR in a single-hop broadcast
      network, and raises no security issues in addition to those already
      covered in [RFC5614].

I was hoping for  ...

    6. Management Considerations
      This document describes the use of OSPF-MDR in a single-hop broadcast
      network, and raises no management issues in addition to those already
      covered in [RFC5614]. It actually simplifies the management and operations
      compared to RFC5614 because going from two-hop to a single-hop implies that ...

But wait, there are no management considerations in RFC 5614, and I don't see any related management documents at https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/ospf/
Granted, it's not fair to have a DISCUSS on this document, and it's too late for RFC5614, but we're left without management considerations.
I'm stuck with a single option for now: let this document go through, but please think about management considerations in the future, either in the document itself, or in a management dedicated document specific to your technology.
In this specific case, let me hope that draft-nguyen-manet-management will address the OSPF-MDR (1 hop and 2 hops)

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks) to Experimental RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Open Shortest Path First IGP WG
(ospf) to consider the following document:
- 'Use of OSPF-MDR in Single-Hop Broadcast Networks'
  as Experimental RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-19. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


RFC 5614 (OSPF-MDR) extends OSPF to support mobile ad hoc networks
(MANETs) by specifying its operation on the new OSPF interface of type
MANET.  This document describes the use of OSPF-MDR in a single-hop
broadcast network, which is a special case of a MANET in which each
router is a (one-hop) neighbor of each other router.  Unlike an OSPF
broadcast interface, such an interface can have a different cost
associated with each neighbor.  The document includes configuration
recommendations and simplified mechanisms that can be used in single-hop
broadcast networks.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(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?

    Experimental.
   
    As an update of RFC5614, an Experimental RFC, this draft is
    also Experimental.

(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 draft describes the application of the OSPF MDR mechanisms
    to single-hop broadcast networks. It also includes simplications
    for MDR selection and Router-LSA origination on single-hop
    broadcast networks.
   
    Working Group Summary

    The initial draft was authored about two years ago in response
    to the OSPF Hybrid Interface draft and OSPF MANET OR draft.
    There was some discussion between those familiar with OSPF
    MANET extensions. There has been little WG last call discussion.

    Consequently, Joe Macker and Tom Henderson were recruited as
    reviewers based on their MANET knowledge and involvement with
    the original OSPF MANET work. As updated version was
    published based this review.
 
    Document Quality

    The document has gone through several WG review cycles and
    revisions. Comments were received from some WG members. There
    are no implementations.

    Personnel     

    Acee Lindem, OSPF WG chair, is the document shepherd and
    Stewart Bryant is the responsible 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.

    As document shepherd, I reviewed the document as well as soliciting
    input from Tom Henderson and Joe Macker.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

    No.


(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 no opposition to the draft. Those who understand
  the MANET use cases support extending the OSPF MANET solution to
  optimize operation on single-hop broadcast networks.

(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 applicable idnits errors and warnings have been resolved.

idnits 2.12.16

tmp/draft-ietf-ospf-manet-single-hop-mdr-02.txt:

  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  -- The draft header indicates that this document updates RFC5614, but the
    abstract doesn't seem to directly say this.  It does mention RFC5614
    though, so this could be OK.


  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (Using the creation date from RFC5614, updated by this document, for
    RFC5378 checks: 2008-02-16)

  -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may
    have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008.  If you
    have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant
    the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore
    this comment.  If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer.
    (See the Legal Provisions document at
    http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.)

  -- The document date (May 5, 2013) is 18 days in the past.  Is this
    intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Experimental
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No issues found here.

    Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 0 warnings (==), 3 comments (--).

    Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about
    the items above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(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).

    This document doesn't require any IANA actions.

(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.