Subject: Re: [manet] AODVv2 Review from an implementation perspective

From: Lotte Steenbrink <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 19:33:23 +0100

Hello,
as announced earlier, a tiny update of my review concerning the changes made in v05:

AckReq vs. RREP_ACK
===================
    v05 states that AckReq and RREP_ACK are not, as I had assumed, two mechanisms
    trying to serve the same purpose. I'm glad this has been clarified.

    However, I am still unsure about how to properly implement a RREP_ACK
    message, as detailed in [1].
    Additionally, RREP_ACKs are listed as an optional feature in section 13.5.,
    while section 5.2. mandates that a RREP_ACK MUST be sent in reply to each AckReq.
    I'm not sure if that adds up, maybe RREP_ACKs should be marked as required
    as well?

Route vs Routing table
======================
    Under “Style and consistency”, I noted that the draft sometimes refers to the
    route table as a routing table. This doesn't apply anymore, since it has been
    corrected in v05.

Correction
==========
    I wrote that letting the implementor choose the Next-hop Router Adjacency
    Monitoring mechanism would lead to interoperability problems. This isn't
    true, as those mechanisms currently have no influence on the blacklists and
    thus cannot prevent a route from being established. The scenario I described
    can, of course, still impact performance: Alice's and Bob's devices may be
    able to talk to each other, but they cannot detect when a link connecting a
    device running Alice's implementation to a device running Bob's implementation
    breaks before they run into timeouts.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg16355.html