Subject: [manet] AODVv2-01 comments

From: Lotte Steenbrink <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 23:36:28 +0200

Hello,
I've read the AODVv2 draft -01. I think the draft is in good shape and easy to 
read. Here are some comments (mostly editorial) that could be considered by 
the authors to further improve the draft.

While the draft usually features sound explanations, one paragraph doesn't seem
to be clear about what it is trying to convey:

On Page 39, section 13.4. (Multicast RREP Response to RREQ):

    Broadcast RREP response to incoming RREQ was originally specified to 
    handle unidirectional links, but it is expensive.  Due to the 
    significant overhead, AODVv2 routers MUST NOT use multicast RREP 
    unless configured to do so by setting the administrative parameter
    USE_MULTICAST_RREP.

While there is an explanation why the use of Multicast RREP Responses is 
discouraged, any hints as to why this functionality is specified in the first 
place are missing. The historical note does provide some context, but only 
serves to make the paragraph more confusing.
My suggestion would be to replace the first sentence of the paragraph with an 
explanation how this feature could be useful. If no such explanation exists,
maybe the feature should be removed from the document altogether?

On Page 10, section 5.1. (Route Table Entry):
      
      Route.Address
      The (host or network) destination address of the node(s)
      associated with the routing table entry
      
is "routing table entry" the same as the route table entry referred to a 
line above? If yes, the choice of words seems inconsistent, if no, it could be 
misleading and/or missing a clear explanation.

On Page 12, section 5.1. (Route Table Entry):

    When a route is no longer Active, it becomes an Idle route.  
    After an idle route remains Idle for MAX_IDLETIME, 
    it becomes an Expired route.

Shouldn't it say Idle route in the 2nd occurence of the word(s) as well 
(instead of idle route)?

On Page 29, section (7.5.1.  Additional Handling for Incoming RREQ):
    
    o  The RREQ (with updated fields as specified above>)
    
Does that > really belong there?

On Page 37, section 13.7.1. (Including Added Node Information):

    […]an AODVv2 router (HandlingRtr) handling a RREP message MAY attempt 
    to verify connectivity to the next upstream router towards AODVv2 router 
    originating an RREQ message,

Shouldn't it say "towards the AODVv2 originating…" instead of "towards AODVv2 
router originating"? And "a RREQ message" instead of "an RREQ message"?

On Page 42, section 14. (Administratively Configurable Parameters and 
Timer Values):
    
    The tables in the following sections show the parameters along their
    definitions

Shouldn't it say "along with their definitions"?

    <msg-hop-count> is a 8-bit field
    
Isn't it "an 8-bit field" instead of "a 8-bit field?"

With kind regards,
Lotte Steenbrink