Subject: [manet] AODVv2-15

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 13:41:00 -0400

Hello all,

As you've seen, a new version of the AODVv2 draft has been posted. Some of
the items addressed are:

1. First up, the status of the document has been changed from Standards
Track to Experimental.
2. Metrics have been addressed, in an attempt to resolve most (if not all)
of the review comments.
3. There has been work in the multicast RREQ/RREP area.
4. The remainder of Justin's last review comments were addressed.

I'm positive I'm leaving some things out, but that's the part of the list I
can remember.

Given the scope change on the document (from Standards Track to
Experimental), we authors are asking for WGLC on the document.

Regards,
Stan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:56:15 +0200

Hi Stan, all,

Just as I was about to turn off the screen and leave the office….

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 19:41, Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello all, 
> 
> As you've seen, a new version of the AODVv2 draft has been posted. Some of the items addressed are: 
> 
> 1. First up, the status of the document has been changed from Standards Track to Experimental. 
> 2. Metrics have been addressed, in an attempt to resolve most (if not all) of the review comments. 
> I'm positive I'm leaving some things out, but that's the part of the list I can remember. 
> 
> Given the scope change on the document (from Standards Track to Experimental), we authors are asking for WGLC on the document. 

That’s a surprising request to see.

All due respect, that seems quite premature: there are still several outstanding issues on which I (and others) was engaging with the authors on the list, as late as a couple of hours ago, that have not been addressed nor discussed and closed — and which I believe should be addressed before WGLC. Even if the target maturity level is Experimental.

Best,

Thomas

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 20:46:15 +0200

Hi Stan,

I think the WG has to discuss if they agree to change the status to
experimental. For me I don't agree, also want to know why the authors want
to do last call quickly while we are doing good discussion in the group.

AB

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:41 PM, Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Justin Dean <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:58:51 -0400

The document is not ready for standards track publication.  If the working
group insists on keeping it standards track I'll release it from the WG
back to the authors now.  Lack of implementations, maturity and zero chance
of getting WG consensus in any reasonable time frame (reasonable in that it
wouldn't kill the WG as a whole) make this impossible.  If you'd like I can
add your complaint to the notes to be listed by the shepherd of objections
on process if we get to that point.