I consulted with the writer of this email about copying to the IETF list and he asked the IESG to decide. I believe that it is helpful that technical comments be aired in public, therefore I am forwarding an edited version of his email. Authors, please include this in the responses that you will be generating. 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.