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

Hi Christopher,

I think the RFC Editor is more like "You can use American or British
spellings, but you should be consistent within the document"...

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email protected]


On Thu, Apr 30, 2026 at 6:34 AM Christopher Dearlove <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for these. As you can see unless I think carefully it’s easy to
> slip into proper British English spelling rather than American English
> spelling. (I believe the RFC editor says something like “You can use
> American or British spellings, except no one actually does use British
> English spellings”.)
>
> My plan, would the document be accepted as a WG item, and unless the
> chairs object, is to fix the minor and incontrovertible points - spellings,
> including one Fred noted, and the RFC - in a -00 and then address any more
> significant points (yours, Donald’s) that might require a bit of thought in
> a -01 to follow not long after. If I do that and thus don’’t address all
> your points in -00, I won’t have ignored them.
>
> > On 30 Apr 2026, at 10:24, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > As a MANET WG participant who has read and reviewed this draft, I
> support adoption.
> >
> > I found a few nits in addition to the ones already flagged by Donald
> Eastlake:
> >
> > - Already communicated to the author directly: Informative reference RFC
> 6779 was obsoleted by RFC 7939
> >
> > - Spelling consistency: Two instances of "behaviour(s)" (section 1,
> section 7) versus many of "behavior"; two instances of "neighbour(s)"
> (section A.3, first paragraph) versus many of "neighbor";
> > One instance of "signalled" (section A.3, third paragraph), which, if
> American spelling is adopted, should be "signaled".
> >
> > - A sentence fragment in Appendix A, intro does not read well: “as while
> is expected that while”. Suggest “as while it is expected that”
> >
> > - In section A.1, second paragraph, first sentence,  I would suggest
> replacing "single messages" by "non-periodic messages" or "event-driven
> messages".
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ronald
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Donald Eastlake via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: donderdag 16 april 2026 04:33
> >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-
> >> [email protected]
> >> Subject: 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]