Opened 7 years ago

#52 new enhancement

Confused paragraph #1 (Editorial issues)

Reported by: abdussalambaryun@… Owned by: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-optimization@…
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: nhdp-optimization Version:
Severity: In WG Last Call Keywords:
Cc: manet@…


The draft states in section 3:

This specification updates [RFC6130]. The optimization presented in

this specification is simply permissive, as it allows retaining information which otherwise would have been removed, but does not use that information except when it could have been used by [RFC6130]. This can, in some cases, ensure that the symmetric 2-hop neighborhood is more robust against temporary link quality changes, and consequently yield a more stable network. The only other consequence of this optimization is that state for some otherwise expired 2-Hop Tuples may be maintained for longer.

Abdussalam Baryun Comment (AB)> the paragraph starts that it updates 6130 which is repeated many times before. The above paragraph has no applicability statement. Please refer here to applicability statements of the updated standards 6130 and 7181, and mention first that their applicability applies for this update proposal. This is to avoid confusion.

The draft states in section 3:

This specification also updates [RFC7181]. This could be avoided by

simply noting that this specification describes how the updates to [RFC6130] may be handled so as to be invisible to any other protocol using it.

AB> I think that this proposal update is for only OLSRv2 routers, this is clear from the abstract. However, the above confuses that as separating the update of mentioning visibility of any other protocol. I don't think this update can be used for AODVv2 (if I mistaken please amend the text to avoid confusion).

The draft states in section 3:

However as it is known that some implementations of

[RFC7181] are not independent of the implementation of [RFC6130] that they use, it is useful to indicate the direct impact on [RFC7181].

AB> when you say "it is known", you should mean known by IETF so please refer to that known document/reference otherwise it is only known by some people. IMHO I remember discussing this issue with OLSRv2 authors at IESG last call, I understood from them that OLSRv2 is not independent from RFC6130. Now, let me assume I know there are routers independent of their RFC6130 interface, then this optimisation proposal is mostly updating RFC6130, therefore, the changes recommended by the draft to the 7181 is only a must if there is dependancy, otherwise, please mention that the full changes required is a must even if OLSRv2 is not dependent on 6130. Furthermore, if there are possibility of other protocol other than OLSRv2 routers to use this draft, then mention that clearly and mention that the Must is of all changes of section 4.

AB> to avoid confusion if this update is only for OLSRv2 routers then mention that in its title. So the title will add words "for OLSRv2 routers.

Best. AB

Change History (0)

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.