Extensions to OSPF to Support Mobile Ad Hoc Networking
RFC 5820

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2009-01-15 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
> Note that the active overlapping relays selection algorithm is
> implementation specific, and the above is simply a suggested
> algorithm.  However, the behavior of the overlapping relays MUST
> follow that specified in the "Flooding and Relay Decisions" Section.
> Moreover, the same selection algorithm MUST be used by all nodes
> within an area.

This should be raised earlier in the document. As written, the
spec does not provide an interoperable solution. This may not be
required for an experimental specification, but at the very least
the reader should know about this after reading the introduction.

> attached to the broadcast network.  Such desginated routers must be

typo

Thomas Narten's quick review reaction was this:

When you do incremental updates, there are all sorts of failure edge cases. Its a lot like how to correctly do a sliding window protocol.
Just skimming the document, its not presented in a way that explains 
the basic idea behind the details. For correctness, you need equivalent
of 3 way handshake to be sure both sides are synchronized w.r.t. shared 
state.

(Ross Callon) (was No Objection) Yes

Comment (2009-01-15 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I think that it is very unfortunate that we can't agree on one single standards track approach for supporting MANET networks with OSPF. However, I understand the difficulty here, and under the circumstances  probably the least bad approach is to progress all three as experimental, and then hope to sort out differences with the aid of operational experience.

(David Ward) Yes

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

Comment (2009-08-26 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
It's only necessary to cite the reference for a citation to a doc on first mention; reading, e.g., "...modifications to [OSPFv3] to support..." throughout the doc is distracting.

Acronym expansion for LSA?  

Are there some links missing or other typos in this network map?

      +---+I11        I21+---+I23   | 
      |RT1|-+----------+-|RT2|------|N1 
      +---+ |          | +---+      | 
      |                |   VI22 
      |                |   + 
      |                |   | 
      |                |   | 
      |                |   | 
      |                |   | 
      |                |   + 
      |                |   ^I41 
      +---+ |          +---+ 
      |RT3|-+        +-|RT4| 
      +---+I31      I42+---+ 

E.g., should the leftmost vertical bars be shifter right 6 or so spaces?

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-01-12)
No email
send info
1.2  Motivation for extending OSPF to support MANETs

   The second motivation is that OSPF is a well understand and widely

s/understand/understood

   deployed routing protocol.

3.2.2  State Check Sequence TLV (SCS TLV)

   o  SCS Number: A circular two octet unsigned integer indicating the

This should say that it is in network byte order.

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection