Subject: [manet] Request to publish draft-ietf-manet-jitter-02.txt - write-up included

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:30:06 +0530

I would like to request that draft-ietf-manet-jitter-02.txt be
published. I am the shepherding WG chair.
Ian Chakeres

===WRITE-UP===

   1. Have the chairs personally reviewed this version of the Internet
Draft (ID), and in particular, do they believe this ID 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 reviewed. NO there is no concern about the reviews.

   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.

   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.

NO.

   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?

STRONG - Several other WG documents contain references to this ID.

   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 ?

YES.

   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.

   9. What is the intended status of the document? (e.g., Proposed
Standard, Informational?)

Informational.

  10. For Standards Track and BCP documents, the IESG approval
announcement includes a write-up section with the following sections:

          * Technical Summary

This document provides recommendations for jittering (randomly
modifying timing) of control traffic transmissions in MANET routing
protocols to reduce the probability of packet collisions.

          * Working Group Summary

This document contains information that was originally in OLSRv2. It
was pulled out and put in its own document, since it is applicable to
many MANET WG protocols (e.g. NHDP, OLSRv2, and DYMO) to avoid
collisions.

          * Protocol Quality

There are a number of IETF documents/protocols that discuss introduced
jitter; these documents are cited. Though jitter is discussed in these
documents, in the context of MANET jitter should be handled in a
slightly different manner. This document goes into more details about
how jitter should be employed in MANETs.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet