Subject: Re: [manet] Does AODVv2 update DYMO?

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:36:27 +0200

Hi

While reading the manet-dymo-22 work in progress (AODVv2 protocol),
commented as,

# in Abstract

The Dynamic MANET On-demand (AODVv2) routing protocol is intended for
use by mobile routers in wireless, multihop networks. AODVv2
determines unicast routes among AODVv2 routers within the network in
an on-demand fashion, offering on-demand convergence in dynamic
topologies.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AB>suggest change> “The Dynamic MANET On-demand (AODVv2)”, to be
changed to “The Dynamic MANET On-demand Distance Vector (D-AODVv2)”,
because the term “AODVv2” has letter “A” which is presented in the
second letter of the abbreviation word MANET, but AODVv2 has the D and
V letters which is the abbreviation of Distance Vector. Regarding the
word Dynamic an abbriviation “D” preferable to be added. The “v2” may
be left to indicate its origin protocol source-idea RFC3561 AODV,
however, this can be explained in the overview.

AB>general comment> AODVv2 is a routing protocol that determines
unicast routes within the mobile routers.

AB> due to mentioning the protocol route-determination and on-demand,
It is useful to specify in abstract, to mention the protocol special
method/technique (e.g. its name or what it uses) used for this
determination and/or the convergence (i.e. to differentiate it from
other reactive protocols for summary or future purposes).

I still am reading the draft to full comment,

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan
Pontypridd, Wales, UK
[email-masked]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 3/20/12, Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Reviewing the draft of AODVv2 (previously DYMO), I think the title confused
> me because I thought that AODVv2 is a new version of the AODV RFC3561, but
> I see that it is an update to the DYMO draft.
>
> In the introduction there is no reference to AODV FRC3561, which now AODVv2
> has the similar name, it was not confusing in the previous DYMO_draft. I
> think if mentioning RFC3561  in draft AODVv2  introduction is
> preferable, to clarify its relationship with this work.
>
> The only related reference was seen in section 9 and 5.3.1
>
> However, There are two questions I didn't understand:
> 1- Will we see a new draft or version of DYMO or not?
> 2- Is AODVv2 another routing protocol than RFC 3561? Please clarify,
>
> Abdussalam
> ICRC, University of Glamorgan, UK
>