Document: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-02
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2009-07-13
IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-24
IESG Telechat date: (if known)


Summary:  Almost ready.

Comments: This is an update to my gen-art review of draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-01, reflecting version 02 of the same draft.

All of my comments have been addressed except where noted below:


On Dec 23, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:

> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ospf-manet-or-01
> Reviewer: Ben Campbell
> Review Date: 2008-12-23
> IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-24
> IESG Telechat date: (if known)
>
>
>

[...]

> -- Section 4:
>
> Is the lack of any existing mechanism to authenticate and authorize 
> nodes to transit packets a show stopper for deployment?
>
> If this was standards track, I would want to see a lot more here, e.g. 
> some exposition of threat models implied by the wirelessness, or 
> introduced by the extensions and procedures described in this draft. 
> (Or rational that there are not any new threat models)  It's probably 
> okay for an experimental RFC to have less, as I assume we expect to 
> learn such things from experience. But if any thinking has been done 
> in that direction, it would be beneficial to document it now.
>

My comments on this section have been addressed,  but the approach has been to completely replicate the Security Consideration section (or at least a large part of it ) from [MDR]. Although the text is attributed, there is no visual distinction to show where the quote starts and ends (i.e. quote marks, indents, etc.).

The easiest solution is probably to simply reference the text from [MDR], rather than quoting it all here.

(I now consider this an editorial comment rather than a substantive
one.)

> Nits and editorial comments:
>

[...]

> -- Section 3.1, paragraph 2:
>
> It's not clear to me if the "MAY" constrains protocol, or constrains 
> future standards work. If the second, it probably should not use
> 2119 language.
>

No change.


> -- Section 3.3.10: PushBackInterval
>
> Referring sections mention PushbackInterval + jitter. Jitter is not 
> mentioned here--is propagation delay the same thing in this context?
> If so, it would be helpful to be consistent in terminology.

No change