Hi Abdussalam, Thank you for your review comments on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt I see seven separate points raised in separate emails. Can you confirm that this is the totality of your comments. I also note that the seventh email was sent to only the IESG. May I have your permission to share this email with the document authors. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:iesg-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Abdussalam Baryun > Sent: 22 August 2012 23:01 > To: iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (The Optimized Link State > Routing Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard > > Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012 > Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 22/08/2012 > > Reviewer Comment AB7: Comments on text in document history [*]. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/history/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > A key difference between RFC3626 and OLSRv2 is the introduction of > support for link metrics. An individual draft > (draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-00) was submitted in 2007, discussing > the design options, culminating in 2010 with > draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-05 documenting Working Group consensus > on this matter. Metrics support was, then, folded into OLSRv2. > > AB> the reviewer thinks the difference is that OLSRv2 is a metric base > router that uses NHDP and RFC5444 packets which are general MANET > interface protocol and general MANET packet format respectively. > OLSRv2 is applicable for more scenarios and routers that are > constraint devices. > > This version of OLSRv2 was given a one month WGLC, so as to ensure > sufficient time to review the document. > > AB> my comments within the period was not considered by the authors > and don't see any consensus from the WG. > > There was an issue concerning the differences between the -14 and -15 > revisions of the document, brought up by one WG member. The consensus > opinion from the WG is that the document should proceed, without > additional edits. > > AB> yes there was a new version update after my comments and > discussion with the authors, but still not happy with the outcome. > > Best Regards > AB > +++++++++++++++++ > The end of my comments (the comments were 7 including this, two only > for the IESG and one addition for only IEFT). > ======================================================== > > On 7/29/12, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG > > (manet) to consider the following document: > > - 'The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2' > > <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> as Proposed Standard > > > > 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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-08-22. Exceptionally, comments may be > > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This last call > > period has been extended to handle the fact that it spans the IETF-84 > > meeting. > > > > This last call is being re-initiated to include a notice that this document > > includes a normative down reference to an Informational RFC: > > RFC5148, "Jitter considerations in MANETs". > > > > Abstract > > > > This specification describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State > > Routing (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). > > > > The file can be obtained via > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/ > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/ballot/ > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > >