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

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

Actually, I found myself with one time I didn’t expect, and was having to make more spelling changes than
Donald and Ronald had found (z rather than s in various words - but not advertised). So I have, I believe,
addressed the comments I’ve seen and not overlooked. With the exception of my own comment about the
possibility of triggering a TC merge not just when a new remote tuple appears but when it changes (this
Would be an option within an option). I’m not sure if this is a good idea or not.

Also, I did revise baed in Juliusz’s comments, indicating that the all-responsive case is limiting and not
Expected (hence in an appendix). But re-reading, I don’t think this went far enough in all places. But
I won’t tackle in this draft.

Comment on these point or anything else welcome of course.

(As I type this I have not submitted the draft. It will I think take an approval step so not immediate.)

> On 6 May 2026, at 16:51, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Christopher,
> 
> Works for me!
> 
> Ronald
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: woensdag 6 mei 2026 17:35
>> To: Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; manet-
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: Call for adoption: draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsive-03 (Ends
>> 2026-04-29)
>> 
>> Unless the chairs would prefer otherwise, I plan to only change typos and the
>> replaced RFC in the -00. Not because other comments aren’t good, but they will
>> take a bit more work and possible discussion. (I don’t recall them well enough to
>> be sure.) That can be in a -01. Along with any other comments people may have.
>> With that limitation I should get -00 out this week, -01 well before end of month.
>> 
>> Christopher
>> 
>>> On 6 May 2026, at 16:28, Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> WG participants,
>>> 
>>> Based on expressions of support(*) on the mailing list, this draft is
>>> adopted by the WG.  The author is requested to edit the draft and
>>> upload it as
>>> draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-responsive-00
>>> 
>>> (*) four in favor, one abstention
>>> 
>>> 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-responsi
>>>> ve/
>>>> 
>>>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2-responsiv
>>>> e-03.html
>>>> 
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-dearlove-manet-olsrv2
>>>> -responsive-
>>>> 03
>