(1) This document is intended for Experimental status. The status is appropriate,
as noted in Section 1.1. The motivation of the experiment is to improve data
forwarding reliability in MANET scenarios. The rationale behind the experiment
is well-documented. The RFC type is included in the page header.
(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:
This document describes an experimental extension of the OLSRv2 protocol
that allows for multiple disjoint paths through a MANET network for a source-
destination pair. Multiple paths can be used to increase throughput in the MANET,
provide load balancing, and improve forwarding reliability.
Working Group Summary
The document was thoroughly reviewed in the Working Group. There were
multiple Last Calls on the document - during previous Last Calls, issues were
discovered, discussed, and resolved. The working group reached consensus
with the extension, and no issues remain.
There are three open-source multi-path OLSRv2 implementations available
for the purpose of proof-of-concept, network simulation, and field test.
Vendors have not indicated plans to implement on a commercial level, hence
part of rationale for making this document Experimental. The document was
extensively reviewed by Christopher Dearlove; those reviews resulted in
issues identified and resolved. Mr. Dearlove’s reviews merit special mention.
No MIB Doctor or other external reviews were sought.
Stan Ratliff (firstname.lastname@example.org) is the Document Shepherd. Alvaro Retana
(email@example.com) is the Responsible Area Director.
The Document Shepherd has performed a cursory review of the document.
The shepherd’s review was not extensive, due to the thoroughness of
other reviews performed in the WG. The document is ready for publication.
The Shepherd does not have any concern about the thoroughness of
In the Shepherd’s opinion, additional reviews are not required.
None. Each author has confirmed conformance with BCP 78/79. There are no
IPR disclosures on the document.
Please see above No IPR disclosures have been filed.
The document represents strong concurrence of a few individuals, with the
majority of the WG silent.
No appeals have been considered or threatened. No extreme discontent has
No ID Nits were found.
Formal Document Review
There was no formal review (e.g. MIB Doctor, URI review) required, as
the document does not effect these areas.
All references within the document have been identified as
either normative or informative.
All normative references are to existing published RFCs.
There are no downward normative references.
The document does not change the status of any existing RFCs.
The Shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section - the
document requests one (1) entry be allocated as a new Type
Extension to an existing Message TLV. This allocation will be in
registry specified in [RFC5444]. The text for Table 2 in the document
is reasonably clear as to the request.
No new registries are required; the addition to the existing registry calls
for expert review as indicated in [RFC5444].
No formal language sections exist; therefore, no additional automated
reviews have been performed.