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

["Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
> Sent: donderdag 16 april 2026 04:33
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-
> [e-mail]
> 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