(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?
Publication as Proposed Standard is requested. This is indicated in the title
page header, and is appropriate since it updates the standard track
RFC 6130 and RFC 7181.
(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:
The link quality mechanism of the MANET Neighborhood Discovery
Protocol (NHDP) enables "ignoring" some 1-hop neighbors if the
measured link quality from that 1-hop neighbor is below an acceptable
threshold, while still retaining the corresponding link information
as acquired from HELLO message exchange. This allows immediate
reinstatement of the 1-hop neighbor if the link quality later
improves sufficiently.
NHDP also collects information about symmetric 2-hop neighbors.
However it specifies that if a link from a symmetric 1-hop neighbor
ceases being symmetric, including while "ignored" as described above,
then corresponding symmetric 2-hop neighbors are removed. This may
lead to symmetric 2-hop neighborhood information being permanently
removed (until further HELLO messages are received) if the link
quality of a symmetric 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
threshold, even if only for a moment.
This specification updates RFC6130 "Mobile Ad Hoc Network (MANET)
Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP)", and RFC7181 "The Optimized
Link State Routing Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)" to permit retaining,
but ignoring, symmetric 2-hop information when the link quality from
the corresponding 1-hop neighbor drops below the acceptable
threshold. This allows immediate reinstatement of the symmetric
2-hop neighbor if the link quality later improves sufficiently, thus
making the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood more "robust".
Working Group Summary:
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there
controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?
A question was raised by one participant about whether it is appropriate
to claim this work as an optimization with providing quantified measurements,
however, the working group felt that the improvements offered a quite clearly
an optimization in terms of reduced message exchanges and so no further
documentation was necessary. The consensus behind publication of this
document as an Proposed Standard RFC appears solid.
Document Quality:
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of
vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers
that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in
important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course
(briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
There are multiple implementations.
No MIB doctor, Media Type or other expert reviews have been done.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
The Document Shepherd is Ulrich Herberg.
The Responsible Area Director is Adrian Farrel.
(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.
The document shepherd has reviewed this document, both as part of the
WG process, and prior to the issuance of the Publication Request.
The document shepherd believes that this version of the document is
ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the
reviews that have been performed?
The document shepherd has no concerns with the depth or
breadth of the reviews of this document.
(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.
This document does not need reviews beyond those normally done during
AD and IESG processing.
(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 WG has
discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.
The document shepherd has no specific concerns with this document.
(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?
Each author has confirmed that they are not aware of any IPR requiring
disclosure.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize
any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures.
No IPR disclosures have been filed, referencing this document.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a
whole understand and agree with it?
There has been solid WG consensus with understanding and agreement
of the whole WG. There were some concerns regarding a missing
quantitative evaluation of the performance improvement of the
specified optimization from Abdussalam Baryun. Nobody else shared
his concerns, and he can therefore be considered to be "in the rough".
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize 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 appeals have been threatened.
No extreme discontent has been indicated.
(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.
IDNIT returns one minor warning (reference to "RFCthis").
This will we be replaced by the RFC editor.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as
the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
There is no required MIB doctor, media type, URI type or other formal review.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or
informative?
All references have been identified as either normative or informative.
(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?
All normative references are to already published RFC at the same,
or on a higher, maturity level.
(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.
There are no downward references.
(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
WG considers it unnecessary.
This document updates RFC6130 and RFC7181. This is listed on the title page
header, and described in the abstract and in the introduction.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
The document has an empty IANA considerations section.
Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
The document has an empty IANA considerations section.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified.
The document has an empty IANA considerations section.
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).
The document has an empty IANA considerations section.
(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.
The document has an empty IANA considerations section.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to
validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
This document does not contain any sections written in a formal language.