Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.500.181\))
From: Christopher Dearlove <christopher.dearlove@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <PA1P192MB32576CD47D2334EFCA391572EF352@PA1P192MB3257.EURP192.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 11:34:31 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9868BCE0-DEF0-406D-8BC8-17722EBCC62E@gmail.com>
References: 
 <177630678776.1170859.334821390209809259@dt-datatracker-647897bf7-7f2k5>
 <PA1P192MB32576CD47D2334EFCA391572EF352@PA1P192MB3257.EURP192.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
To: "Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl>
Message-ID-Hash: GSIQIGF46PTMFACPPFCMSFL77SSGOZJV
CC: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>,
 "manet-chairs@ietf.org" <manet-chairs@ietf.org>,
 "draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive@ietf.org"
 <draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bmanet=5D_Re=3A_Call_for_adoption=3A_draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2?=
 =?utf-8?q?-responsive-03_=28Ends_2026-04-29=29?=
Archived-At: 
 <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/ckfJ00aW2wJ7sqJfIDmOz2k1u_s>

Thanks for these. As you can see unless I think carefully it=E2=80=99s =
easy to slip into proper British English spelling rather than American =
English spelling. (I believe the RFC editor says something like =E2=80=9CY=
ou can use American or British spellings, except no one actually does =
use British English spellings=E2=80=9D.)

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=E2=80=99s) that might =
require a bit of thought in a -01 to follow not long after. If I do that =
and thus don=E2=80=99=E2=80=99t address all your points in -00, I =
won=E2=80=99t have ignored them.

> On 30 Apr 2026, at 10:24, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't =
<Ronald.intVelt@tno.nl> wrote:
>=20
> As a MANET WG participant who has read and reviewed this draft, I =
support adoption.
>=20
> I found a few nits in addition to the ones already flagged by Donald =
Eastlake:
>=20
> - Already communicated to the author directly: Informative reference =
RFC 6779 was obsoleted by RFC 7939
>=20
> - 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".
>=20
> - A sentence fragment in Appendix A, intro does not read well: =E2=80=9C=
as while is expected that while=E2=80=9D. Suggest =E2=80=9Cas while it =
is expected that=E2=80=9D
>=20
> - In section A.1, second paragraph, first sentence,  I would suggest =
replacing "single messages" by "non-periodic messages" or "event-driven =
messages".
>=20
> Thanks,
> Ronald
>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Donald Eastlake via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
>> Sent: donderdag 16 april 2026 04:33
>> To: manet@ietf.org; manet-chairs@ietf.org; =
draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-
>> responsive@ietf.org
>> Subject: Call for adoption: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03 =
(Ends
>> 2026-04-29)
>>=20
>> This message starts a manet WG Call for Adoption of:
>> draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03
>>=20
>> This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-04-29
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>>   This specification updates RFC 7181 "The Optimized Link State =
Routing
>>   Protocol version 2 (OLSRv2)".
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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].
>>=20
>> Thank you.
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
>> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>>=20
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>> =
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive/
>>=20
>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>> =
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-
>> 03.html
>>=20
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> =
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=3Ddraft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-
>> responsive-03