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

[Christopher Dearlove <[e-mail]>]

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-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