Shepherd writeup

 (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.  The draft proposes a method of calculating a metric to be used in a standard protocol, RFC 7181 (in a standard way.) This experimental draft will allow OLSRv2 deployments with a metric defined by the IETF MANET group.  It enables easier interoperability tests between implementations and will also deliver a useful baseline to compare other metrics to.

(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 document specifies an directional airtime link metric for usage in OLSRv2.  A major shortcoming of OLSR was the use of hop count as a routing metric for MANET networks, which can have highly variable and heterogeneous link properties.  OLSRv2 integrates the concept of link metrics directly into the core specification but the calculation and/or acquisition of this dimensionless additive link cost is not specified.  

This document describes a method for specifying this routing metric for OLSRv2, the Directional Airtime routing metric.  This metric is a successor of the ETX-derived routing metric used since 2004.  It takes both loss rate and the link speed into account to provide a more accurate picture of the links within the network.

Working Group Summary:
There were no working group issues with any specific points.  There was desire for slight differences in the definition of the metric but as this is an experimental draft it does not preclude other different metrics from being defined and used.

Document Quality:

There are at least 3 different independent implementations.  Most OLSRv2 implementation authors have either implemented this draft or at least voiced the desire to do so. The specification is clear but at parts the prose are a bit awkward.

Document Shepherd?  Justin Dean 
Responsible Area Director? Alvaro Retana

(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 shepherd has read and implemented the draft and it is ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No concerns. 
(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.

An English Language review would be helpful.

(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.

No issues.

(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?

No IPR issues.

(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 issues.

(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 is broad moderate support for the document with a few individuals strongly in support of it.  There was no opposition. 

(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.)


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).  Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. idnits 

/tmp/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-06.txt(428): Line has weird 
spacing: '...eceived  is a ...' 
/tmp/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-06.txt(432): Line has weird 
spacing: '...T_total  is a ...' 
/tmp/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-06.txt(437): Line has weird 
spacing: '...et_time  is th...' 
/tmp/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-06.txt(440): Line has weird 
spacing: '...nterval  is th...' 
/tmp/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-06.txt(453): Line has weird 
spacing: '...tervals  is th...' 
/tmp/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-06.txt(457): Line has weird 
spacing: '...bitrate  is th...' 
/tmp/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-06.txt(460): Line has weird 
spacing: '...t_seqno  is th...'

No boilerplate issues or nits found

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.


(13) Have all references within this document 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?


(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.


(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 will not change the status of any other RFCs.

(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).

As this document uses code-points defined in OLSRv2 (RFC 7181) and does not require any OTA signaling it does not require additional allocation by IANA. 

(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.


(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.