Re: [manet] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-13: (with COMMENT)

Dear Adam, 

We appreciate your review and comments. 

> On 11 May 2017, at 08:13, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multipath-13: No Objection
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I reviewed the -12 version of this document, and had a comment I was
> going to make about dropping packets when no contiguous path of
> source-routing capable routers existed between the endpoints; but when I
> went to quote the offending text, discovered that it has been fixed in
> the ink-is-still-wet -13 version of the document, dropped one day before
> the telechat. 
> 
> To highlight for anyone else who has similarly reviewed the -12 version:
> the only other non-editorial change I find is that avoiding fragmentation
> has been demoted from normative to non-normative (see the last two
> paragraphs of section 8.4). My intuition is that fragmentation is
> sufficiently disruptive that normative language is called for here, but I
> don't feel strongly about it.

As you mentioned, the normative language was used in the -12 revision. It was changed to non-normative based on the comments received from IETF LC (IIRC, from Alvaro?).
Generally speaking, fragmentation is harmful, but it won’t break the network. I’m fine with both. 

best

Jiazi

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet