[manet] Re: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03

One document is simply neither possible not desirable, for reasons noted.

Yes, there could be a little bit of combination. Not much, but a bit. But it’s not hard when checking an RFC to see the notes about what updates it. And it’s standard practice.

And it wasn’t AODVv2/DYMO that was the original motivation for separating NHDP as a protocol in its own right, not jut a part of OLSR. Several people wanted it, among them being the authors of SMF. And that separation exists - it’s baked into lot of places (IANA registries for example). Trying to revere that would be serious work, might cause people some problems, and addresses a non-problem.

Unfortunately the implementation I wrote - which has everything in it, even RFC 7859 and work beyond that - is not publicly available. I know of one other possibility (not written by me) that I’ll check, but don’t expect anything from.

> On 19 Mar 2026, at 07:04, Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 11:40 AM Christopher Dearlove <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> And as I said, but also saying more:
>> 
>> (a) Multiple drafts is standard operating practice in RFCs. I used OSPF as an example, but I doubt there are many widely used non-trivial protocols that are defined in single documents.
> 
> one doc is easier for the internet community to follow up this standard and easier to use.
>  
>> 
>> (b) Having thought more, I don’t think it is practical. It was a WG requirement that NHDP was separated from OLSRv2 so the firmer could be used separate from the latter. Once that is done, we have a lot of documents (jitter, time TLV, baseline security) that apply to both and thus to avoid repetition need themselves to be separate. And documents like 7859 (number from memory) that I an example of security that is separate for technical and political reasons (the method used may date - or already be dated).
> 
> Yes that separation was ok for NHDP_doc and packetbb_doc, because there was an approach by this WG to have same manet_interface/manet_packet for both OLSR and AODV, however, IMHO the old participants failed to complete the AODV or failed to make the separation having its main benefit for other protocols.
> 
>> 
>> (c) Even if there were some value in doing what combining is possible, there’s no one I can see with the expertise and inclination (or funding) to do it.
> 
> IMHO we in IETF MANET WG will not need now OLSRv2_expertise but we mostly will need an implementation that combines all updates for rfc7181, I tried to get an implementation that was from the open source community but that implementation did not work. So I will now start a new search for an implementation that holds all updates or even separate, or I will need to implement it separately starting at 7181 doc.
> 
> best regards
> AB

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]