Hi Adrian, Yes my comments requested by last call to be submitted to IESG for the subject (evaluation purpose) have been ended. However, if I get any request/receive/read any new issue in IETF, I may comment again to IETF discuss list. For the OLSRv2 in general comments will never end as long as there are users and as long the internet mission is development/progress, but to IESG I have ended the comments (one additional to ietf) which I mentioned the *end* in my last comment to IESG. They were separate to focus each comment on separate related view.
I don't know how is the practice of IESG process or Last Call process, but I have tried many times with the authors before, to make the document better but they think my comments are not important (which maybe they are right). Therefore, I don't want to give any permission to share with them, I will leave it to IESG. If IESG agrees to share any/all comments they received to any/all author(s), I will have no objection. Thanking you, Best Regards Abdussalam Baryun (AB) University of Glamorgan, UK ++++++++++++++++++++++ On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > > Thank you for your review comments on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt > > I see seven separate points raised in separate emails. Can you confirm > that this > is the totality of your comments. > > I also note that the seventh email was sent to only the IESG. May I have > your > permission to share this email with the document authors. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Abdussalam Baryun > > Sent: 22 August 2012 23:01 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> (The Optimized > Link > State > > Routing Protocol version 2) to Proposed Standard > > > > Reply to your request dated 29/07/2012 > > Draft Reviewed By: Abdussalam Baryun (AB) Dated: 22/08/2012 > > > > Reviewer Comment AB7: Comments on text in document history [*]. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/history/ > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > A key difference between RFC3626 and OLSRv2 is the introduction of > > support for link metrics. An individual draft > > (draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-00) was submitted in 2007, discussing > > the design options, culminating in 2010 with > > draft-dearlove-olsrv2-metrics-05 documenting Working Group consensus > > on this matter. Metrics support was, then, folded into OLSRv2. > > > > AB> the reviewer thinks the difference is that OLSRv2 is a metric base > > router that uses NHDP and RFC5444 packets which are general MANET > > interface protocol and general MANET packet format respectively. > > OLSRv2 is applicable for more scenarios and routers that are > > constraint devices. > > > > This version of OLSRv2 was given a one month WGLC, so as to ensure > > sufficient time to review the document. > > > > AB> my comments within the period was not considered by the authors > > and don't see any consensus from the WG. > > > > There was an issue concerning the differences between the -14 and -15 > > revisions of the document, brought up by one WG member. The consensus > > opinion from the WG is that the document should proceed, without > > additional edits. > > > > AB> yes there was a new version update after my comments and > > discussion with the authors, but still not happy with the outcome. > > > > Best Regards > > AB > > +++++++++++++++++ > > The end of my comments (the comments were 7 including this, two only > > for the IESG and one addition for only IEFT). > > ======================================================== > > > > On 7/29/12, The IESG <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG > > > (manet) to consider the following document: > > > - 'The Optimized Link State Routing Protocol version 2' > > > <draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-15.txt> as Proposed Standard > > > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > > [email protected] mailing lists by 2012-08-22. Exceptionally, comments > may be > > > sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the > > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. This last > call > > > period has been extended to handle the fact that it spans the IETF-84 > > > meeting. > > > > > > This last call is being re-initiated to include a notice that this > document > > > includes a normative down reference to an Informational RFC: > > > RFC5148, "Jitter considerations in MANETs". > > > > > > Abstract > > > > > > This specification describes version 2 of the Optimized Link State > > > Routing (OLSRv2) protocol for Mobile Ad hoc NETworks (MANETs). > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/ > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2/ballot/ > > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > >
