Subject: Re: [manet] #17: Proposed Reactive Protocols' Alternative Message Formats

From: "manet issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 23:19:17 -0000

#17: Proposed Reactive Protocols' Alternative Message Formats

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 After reviewing this issue and subsequent comments, I suggest that we
 close this issue.  I agree that incorporating Henning's proposed revision
 should have the effect of relieving concerns about positional independence
 for the base spec, and the debate about whether positional dependence is
 bad or good can go on as a separate matter if there is still interest.

-- 
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:
     Type:  enhancement                 |  [email-masked]
 Priority:  major                       |      Status:  assigned
Component:  dymo                        |   Milestone:  milestone1
 Severity:  Active WG Document          |     Version:
 Keywords:  RFC5444, Address TLVs       |  Resolution:
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/manet/trac/ticket/17#comment:3>
manet <http://tools.ietf.org/manet/>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:24:30 +0200

Hi Charlie,

This ticket is still for DYMO drafts, but now we have AODVv2 draft, I
hope that all tickets refer to the new document, or what do you think,

AB