Subject: [manet] Request to publish draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt - writeup included

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:34:01 +0530

I would like to request that draft-ietf-manet-packetbb-11.txt be
published. I am the shepherding WG chair.

===WRITE-UP===

    1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the
 Internet Draft (I-D), and in particular, do they believe this I-D is
 ready to forward to the IESG for publication?

 YES.

    2. Has the document had adequate review from both key WG members
 and key non-WG members? Do you have any concerns about the depth or
 breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

 YES the ID has been adequately reviewed.

    3. Do you have concerns that the document needs more review from a
 particular (broader) perspective (e.g., security, operational
 complexity, someone familiar with AAA, etc.)?

 The document has been reviewed by the security directorate, and the
 suggestions were included in the recent revisions.

    4. Do you have any specific concerns/issues with this document
 that you believe the ADs and/or IESG should be aware of? For example,
 perhaps you are uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
 have concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
 your issues have been discussed in the WG and the WG has indicated it
 that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns
 in the write-up.

 During the WGLC period a few issues were brought up.

 Efficiency - The I-D represents a trade-off between
 expressiveness/flexibility on one side and encoding-efficiency on the
 other side. Certain members of the WG feel that a trade-off favoring
 more encoding-efficiency against less expressiveness or flexibility
 would be desirable. The I-D has developed since its inception to be
 accommodating in this area and, despite some remaining criticism,
 there is consensus to progress with the current specification.

 Ordering and uniqueness of TLVs - Previous versions of this I-D
 mandated strict ordering and uniqueness constraints on TLVs,
 recognizing that (i) such allows for efficiency in parsing and (ii)
 that such does not limit expressiveness and processing by a protocol
 using this specification. Certain members of the WG felt that this
 was unacceptable for potential future uses. This was accommodated by
 the latest I-D, which allows relaxing these constraints if explicitly
 signaled. The WGLC was extended to allow for comments on this
 compromise and no negative comments were received.  There is
 therefore consensus to progress with the current specification.

    5. How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
 represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
 being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

 All the other significant WG documents contain a reference to this
 ID. Though there has been recent disagreement on a few small details
 (described above), the document overall has significant support.

    6. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
 discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
 email to the Responsible Area Director.

 The current version of this I-D has addressed the issues causing
 discontent, and during the extended WGLC no objections were raised.

    7. Have the chairs verified that the document adheres to all of
 the ID Checklist items ?

 YES.

    8. Is the document split into normative and informative
 references? Are there normative references to IDs, where the IDs are
 not also ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
 (note here that the RFC editor will not publish an RFC with normative
 references to IDs, it will delay publication until all such IDs are
 also ready for publication as RFCs.)

 YES the references are split into normative and informative
 references.

    9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
 Standard, Informational?)

 Proposed Standard.

   10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
 announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections:

           * Technical Summary

 This document specifies the syntax of a general purpose multi-
 message packet format for information exchange between MANET
 routers. The format has been designed with extensibility, efficiency,
 and a clear separation of forwarding and processing.

           * Working Group Summary

 This document contains information that was originally in OLSRv2.  It
 was pulled out and generalized, since it is applicable to many MANET
 WG protocols - specifically NHDP, OLSRv2, and DYMO.

 Though there was some recent disagreement about some details (see
 above), the overall support for this document is large. It is an
 integral component of other WG specifications, namely NHDP, OLSRv2,
 and DYMO.

           * Protocol Quality

 From an efficiency standpoint this specification is a large
 improvement from previous protocol instances. For example, in OLSRv1
 with IPv6 - OLSRv2 (using the document being put forward for
 publication) can reduce the number of packets transmitted by half (by
 aggregating multiple messages) and it can reduce the overhead by half
 (by compressing addresses).

 There are many implementations. Interoperability (of this
 specification) in conjunction with others that cite (namely OLSRv2)
 have been performed.

 ===========

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet