Subject: [manet] NHDP Writeup and Request to Publish as RFC

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:49:47 -0500

I would like to request that NHDP (draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-11.txt) be published as an RFC, on behalf of the MANET WG. 

I (Ian Chakeres - [email-masked]) will act as the WG chair shepherding this document.

Below is the writeup.

Thanks.
Ian Chakeres

===NHDP 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.)?

 NO we do not have any particular concerns.

    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 prior review and the WGLC a few issues have been brought
 up, some several times. One of these issues is the complexity of the
 protocol. For example, a node id not identified by any particular
 ID. Another issue that has arisen is operation between instances with
 different configurations; and complexity interactions with other
 protocols (e.g. OSLRv2 and SMF); and even multiple cooperating or
 non-cooperating instances of these protocols.

 In spite of some minor controversies, the group has reached consensus
 on the NHDP protocol document.

    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?

 Many other significant WG documents contain a reference to this
 ID. Though there has been some small disagreement on a few details
 (several 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.

 NO.

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

 The current document contains several small nits, and the authors are
 working to remove during the next revision. These changes should not
 affect the technical content of the document.

    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 describes a 1-hop and symmetric 2-hop neighborhood
 discovery protocol (NHDP) for mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs).

           * Working Group Summary

 This document contains information that was originally in OLSRv2.  It
 was pulled out and generalized, since it can be used in conjunction
 with several of the MANET WG protocols - specifically OLSRv2, SMF,
 and DYMO.

           * Protocol Quality

 Several interoperable implementations of NHDP exist, and many are
 publicly available. Note: that these implementations are often
 bundled with OLSRv2 implementations, as NHDP is a major component of
 OLSRv2.

 ===========