Multi-Topology Extension for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Yes
(Alia Atlas) No Objection
Deborah Brungard No Objection
(Ben Campbell) No Objection
(Benoît Claise) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and Sue's points. Editorial comments: Section 12 "If the MANET may contain non-MT-OLSRv2 routers," This is weird sentence. The next bullet point contains a similar sentence which I believe is more appropriate: "Note that if there is any possibility that there are any routers not implementing MT-OLSRv2" The following sentence could also be improved (may or may not) "If a packet is created for a destination that is not part of the corresponding topology then it may or may not be delivered (if the originating router is a non-MT-OLSRv2 router) or will not be transmitted (if the originating router is an MT-OLSRv2 router). Routers SHOULD be managed so that this does not occur." Regards, Benoit
(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection
(Brian Haberman) No Objection
Barry Leiba No Objection
Comment (2015-05-27 for -05)
Let's please have a brief, non-blocking discussion of the "updates" status here. As I read this, I don't see how this updates either 7181 or 7188. It clearly doesn't update 7188: it's just using an extension mechanism that was specified in 7188. I also don't think it updates 7181, because it's specifying an optional (indeed, experimental) extension. Here: does someone reading 7181, with no interest in implementing this experimental extension, need to read (or even know about) this document? I think the answer is no. (There's also the spurious "XXXX" in the updates list, which should be removed.) Update: The authors confirm that it doesn't matter to them, and they just want it to be right. Unless anyone thinks otherwise, I think we should remove all the "updates" on this one.