[manet] Re: Call for adoption: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2 -responsive-03 (Ends 2026-04-29)

I have read the draft and support adoption. In section A.2, it says:

"and hence why these TC messages from remore routers are required in this case."

Please correct the mis-spelled word. The draft might also benefit from a bit more discussion on backward compatibility for MANETs in which some routers implement the responsive approach while others do not.

Thank you - Fred Templin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Eastlake via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 7:33 PM
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: [manet] Call for adoption: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03 (Ends 2026-04-29)
> 
> This message starts a manet WG Call for Adoption of:
> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03
> 
> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-04-29
> 
> Abstract:
>    This specification describes an optional Topology Control (TC)
>    message that can be sent by an OLSRv2 router.  This is permitted, but
>    not suggested, by the existing protocol, but is here recommended for
>    use in some networks.  The original motivation for this message came
>    from the circumstances of a mostly stable network, in the most
>    extreme case updated only by messages responding to the arrival and
>    departure of routers, in which case the additional TC message is not
>    just recommended but required.  However, the additional message could
>    be useful in reducing the routing convergence time in any network in
>    which messages are sent at lengthy intervals.
> 
>    This specification updates RFC 7181 "The Optimized Link State Routing
>    Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)".
> 
> Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support adoption
> of this Internet-Draft by the manet WG. Comments to explain your preference
> are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message and
> include this message in your response.
> 
> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [2].
> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
> found at [3].
> 
> Thank you.
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
> 
> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive/
> 
> There is also an HTML version available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03.html
> 
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]