Hello Vicky,
Two minor revisions to your suggested text below:
On 8/20/2015 1:27 AM, Victoria Mercieca wrote:
Section 6.4 page 23 para 4 using [RFC 3561] in this way as a
SHOULD makes it a normative reference, which is a downref, and
it’s buried somewhere in that reference without an indication.
Should be pulled out and included in this document.
We will reword to avoid the apparent downref. Do you have a
suggestion for this?
It now says this:
"To reduce congestion in a network, repeated
attempts at route discovery for a particular target address SHOULD
utilize the binary exponential backoff used in [RFC3561]. If the
requested route is not learned within RREQ_WAIT_TIME of sending the
first RREQ, RREQ_Gen sends a new RREQ. The wait time for the RREP
corresponding to the second RREQ is 2 * RREQ_WAIT_TIME. If the
requested route is not learned within this time period, another RREQ
MAY be sent, up to a total of DISCOVERY_ATTEMPTS_MAX. For each
additional attempt, the waiting time for the RREP is multiplied by 2,
so that the time conforms to a binary exponential backoff."
actually it says:
"remains Active until its expiration time, after which it MUST become Invalid. "
This is true. Then, when it's invalid, it MAY be expunged...the memory constraint bit is in a lower paragraph now, not to confuse things.
Under Invalid:
"If Route.State is Invalid, the route MUST be maintained until MAX_SEQNUM_LIFETIME after Route.LastSeqNumUpdate, after which it MUST be expunged. Route.SeqNum is used to classify future information about Route.Address as stale or fresh."
Keeping the separation, hopefully making it very clear.
