MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <178542889953.1430372.11902630643836405253@dt-datatracker-d4d6ff9d9-fsx7d>
 <BN0P110MB14208C4A410B26DE75C319C1A3C9A@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: 
 <BN0P110MB14208C4A410B26DE75C319C1A3C9A@BN0P110MB1420.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 07:11:44 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CADnDZ8_mmc-orRysA27=mMNgT1ePsUiSEue_LnottC9oU2Owxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin=40boeing.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000412d8f0658d2a028"
Message-ID-Hash: F42SWUPTSX75J5WGMMS54NIXAQXX6CK2
CC: "internet-drafts@ietf.org" <internet-drafts@ietf.org>,
 "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>,
 "i-d-announce@ietf.org" <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bmanet=5D_Re=3A_I-D_Action=3A_draft-ietf-manet-inet-gap-analysis?=
	=?utf-8?q?-04=2Etxt?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Il9PArpdTHnuMuYJ4J-R_G1pkb4>

--000000000000412d8f0658d2a028
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Fred,

Thanks for your update. I am not sure what was agreed on so far from this
WG regarding L3 and L2  routers, however, I think it is important not to
make this draft complicated, so I suggest issues relating to
L3_manet_routers and L2_routers is out of scope of this draft. I remember
that past authors manet RFCs preferred not to mention layers (or leave it
as IP_manet_routers, because manet technologies may use different layers
but it is more simple to separate draft with focus on such issues. There
was one comment on this WG_list related to this by chris but not sure which
thread subject.

so I suggest we delete this definition below of draft-04 and leave it as
draft-3 :

MANET Router
      a node that runs a routing protocol over one or more MANET
      interfaces to establish multihop forwarding paths within a local
      routing region.  Forwarding nodes in both L2- and L3-MANETs are
      considered "routers" even when forwarding is based on MAC
      addresses.  All MANET routers are also considered MANET nodes, but
      not all MANET nodes necessarily act as MANET routers.


On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 6:39=E2=80=AFPM Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templi=
n=3D
40boeing.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> This draft version was necessary to introduce the distinction between L2-
> and L3-MANET and to show how both models fit within the MANET
> Internetworking problem space.


suggest that needs a separate draft, because I think there is one WG RFC
that defines already the routers or the model we are focusing on, so yes
this is interesting but I think it will make this draft more complicated.

however, my coming review will comment on draft as soon as I finish.

thanks
AB

--000000000000412d8f0658d2a028
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Fred,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for yo=
ur update. I am not sure what was agreed on so far from this WG regarding L=
3 and L2=C2=A0 routers, however, I think it is important not to make this d=
raft complicated, so I suggest issues relating to L3_manet_routers and L2_r=
outers is out of scope of this draft. I remember that past authors manet RF=
Cs preferred=C2=A0not to mention layers (or leave it as IP_manet_routers, b=
ecause manet technologies may use different layers but it is more simple to=
 separate draft with focus on such issues. There was one comment on this WG=
_list related to this by chris but not sure which thread subject.</div><div=
><br></div><div>so I suggest we delete this definition below of draft-04 an=
d leave it as draft-3 :</div><div><br></div><div><pre style=3D"box-sizing:b=
order-box;font-family:&quot;Noto Sans Mono&quot;,SFMono-Regular,Menlo,Monac=
o,Consolas,&quot;Liberation Mono&quot;,&quot;Courier New&quot;,monospace;fo=
nt-size:0.875em;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;overflow:auto;color:rgb(33=
,37,41)">MANET Router
      a node that runs a routing protocol over one or more MANET
      interfaces to establish multihop forwarding paths within a local
      routing region.  Forwarding nodes in both L2- and L3-MANETs are
      considered &quot;routers&quot; even when forwarding is based on MAC
      addresses.  All MANET routers are also considered MANET nodes, but
      not all MANET nodes necessarily act as MANET routers.</pre></div></di=
v><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" cla=
ss=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jul 30, 2026 at 6:39=E2=80=AFPM Templin (US), Fre=
d L &lt;Fred.L.Templin=3D<a href=3D"mailto:40boeing.com@dmarc.ietf.org">40b=
oeing.com@dmarc.ietf.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex">This draft version was necessary to introduce the d=
istinction between L2- and L3-MANET and to show how both models fit within =
the MANET Internetworking problem space. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>s=
uggest that needs a separate draft, because I think there is one WG RFC tha=
t defines already the routers or the model we are focusing on, so yes this =
is interesting but I think it will make this draft more complicated.</div><=
div><br></div><div>however, my coming review will comment on draft as soon =
as I finish.</div><div><br></div><div>thanks</div><div>AB</div></div></div>

--000000000000412d8f0658d2a028--