Subject: [manet] AODVv2 status

From: Justin Dean <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 01:03:30 -0400

The intent of my review of AODVv2 was to give me better clarity on if the
draft should be killed or was worth pursuing. Unfortunately for me it
didn't do that and it fit nearly perfectly into very small area of not bad
enough to really die but not really good enough to be a standards document
(in it's reviewed state).  I've been pleased with the amount of work
ongoing to address my and others comments and update the draft.  The turn
around has been much more prompt and meaningful than in past iterations.
There will be a WG last call on AODVv2.  That doesn't mean that it will get
sent on but will allow the rest of the WG members to voice there comments
and reviews a final time with the most recent draft (which is much
improved)

I would like to see more on-list discussions from the AODVv2 team.  It's
okay to have separate discussions but the WG members are the ones who will
have to agree that the draft and the decisions in it are the correct ones,
not just the editor team.   If someone has a comment and the editors
convince themselves that it's not an issue it's not really fixed yet.

The flip side of that coin. WG members we can help make this a good draft
by providing meaningful and helpful comments. Remember that this is a WG
document not the editors document.

Justin

---

From: Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:17:51 +0100

> On 22 Mar 2016, at 06:03, Justin Dean <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The intent of my review of AODVv2 was to give me better clarity on if the draft should be killed or was worth pursuing. Unfortunately for me it didn't do that and it fit nearly perfectly into very small area of not bad enough to really die but not really good enough to be a standards document (in it's reviewed state).  I've been pleased with the amount of work ongoing to address my and others comments and update the draft.  The turn around has been much more prompt and meaningful than in past iterations.  There will be a WG last call on AODVv2.  That doesn't mean that it will get sent on but will allow the rest of the WG members to voice there comments and reviews a final time with the most recent draft (which is much improved)

Given the number of outstanding major issues, considering a WGLC is extremely premature.

Thomas

> I would like to see more on-list discussions from the AODVv2 team.  It's okay to have separate discussions but the WG members are the ones who will have to agree that the draft and the decisions in it are the correct ones, not just the editor team.   If someone has a comment and the editors convince themselves that it's not an issue it's not really fixed yet.
> 
> The flip side of that coin. WG members we can help make this a good draft by providing meaningful and helpful comments. Remember that this is a WG document not the editors document.
> 
> Justin
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:43:00 +0200

Hi Justin,

I agree totally that this document is our group document not only for
editors, and we accepted as a group this draft, so no doubt that the draft
has acceptance by the group and that we need reasonable comments that has
details of problems not just thoughts or questions. The discussion problem
is because it is becoming more idea-discussion not a text-discussion. I
remember that when I was questioning a group draft of multi-topology with
many comments with questions the chair stopped my participation because he
wants clear technical issues/example of fault with advise of suggested
text/deletes.

 I ask all participants to suggest text to solve routing-issues if any, not
just say there is a problem in our draft. I think if we/you find a problem,
you/we need to suggest to fix it by add-text/delete into our-draft. Mostly
in routing we can understand the issue better when we see the suggested
solution or if we get an example of fault.

AB