Routing Multipoint Relay Optimization for the Optimized Link State Routing Protocol Version 2 (OLSRv2)
draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-rmpr-optimization-01

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -00)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-24)
No email
send info
Version -01 resolves the 2119-key-word issue; thanks for dealing with that.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-19 for -00)
No email
send info
- I read multiple times these sentences, and I'm not sure what they mean:

   Note that an implementation using this optimization is not strictly
   compliant with the current specification [OLSRv2], ...

   This specification updates [OLSRv2] to specify that an implementation
   using this optimization is compliant with the protocol OLSRv2.


- I agree with Barry's DISCUSS

- I Would appreciate if you would expand MPRs (multipoint relays) earlier in the draft.

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-19 for -00)
No email
send info
Since other ADs have already raised the issues I spotted with this document, I will simply point out that the MPR acronym needs to be expanded and should not appear in the Abstract.

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -00)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -00)
No email
send info

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -00)
No email
send info

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -00)
No email
send info

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-15 for -00)
No email
send info
These two statements seem in conflict:

   A set of routing MPRs created as specified in [OLSRv2] MAY be
   optimized in the following manner.

[...]

   It is RECOMMENDED that all OLSRv2 routers use this optimization.

The first indicates that the optimization is purely an option. The second indicates that it is a requirement with certain exceptions that may exist. Which do you mean? If the former, I'd suggest just getting rid of both of the 2119 terms (use "can" instead of "MAY" and "suggested" instead of "RECOMMENDED"), since it's only a suggestion. If the latter, change the "MAY" to a "SHOULD".

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-19 for -00)
No email
send info
I'm No Objection, and trusting that the fuzziness other ADs are asking about will get unfuzzed ...

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -00)
No email
send info

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -00)
No email
send info

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-02-19 for -00)
No email
send info
Section 3, first paragraph:

   include it.  However inclusion of this optimization is advised, it
   can, in some cases, create smaller and fewer messages, without ever
   having the opposite effect.

This is nitpicky, but I wish you'd use some conjunction other than a comma between "advised" and "it" on the first line, or else make it two sentences.