Vicky,
Thanks for the draft!
As for going forward – would it be possible to prioritize the work on RFC 5444
compliance? The reason I ask is that I’d like to see us spin a draft copy out
to the WG with that text in it, and see if we can get anyone interested in
giving us some review comments. Since Henning specifically mentioned that
during the interim, it might entice him to read & review further.
Regards,
Stan
From: aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:aodvv2-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Victoria Mercieca
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:06 PM
To: aodvv2-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aodvv2-discuss] Draft 10a
Hi all,
So this version includes an update to the description of timed routes and
expiration time, a better definition of unconfirmed routes, and updates to make
it clear that AckReq and RREP_Ack MUST be supported as the default way of
monitoring connectivity.
It doesnt yet include the result of the latest emails on gateways, RFC5444, or
unconfirmed routes and routes to neighbors.
Regards,
Vicky.
_____________________________________________________
This electronic message and any files transmitted with it contains
information from iDirect, which may be privileged, proprietary
and/or confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the original
recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the
intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email
in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or
copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email
in error, please delete it and immediately notify the sender.
_____________________________________________________
