[In progress - not ready for sending] I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at . Document: draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-dat-metric-08 Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat Review Date: TBS IETF LC End Date: 2015-11-23 IESG Telechat date: 2015-12-03 Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as an Experimental RFC, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Major: 0 Minor: 0 Nits: 5 Nits: * Section 1: "Appendix A contains a few possible steps to improve the DAT metric." This is the first occurrence of the "DAT" acronym. It took me a bit to realize this must be referring to "Directional AirTime". Could you please define the acronym *before* the first use? (Perhaps in the prior paragraph where "Directional Airtime" is first used.) * Section 2: "These networks employ link layer retransmission to increase the delivery probability and multiple unicast data rates." I'm not sure how to parse this sentence. Is it intended to be: "These networks employ link layer retransmission to increase (the delivery probability) and (multiple unicast data rates)." OR "These networks employ link layer retransmission to (increase the delivery probability) and (multiple unicast data rates)." Either way I don't understand what "multiple unicast data rates" means. Can you clarify this? * Section 7: You call these *constants*, in contrast to the *parameters* defined in section 6. But you then suggest conditions under which they could be changed. Perhaps they should simply be included with the parameters, but with strong warnings about diverging from the recommended values. Else, it would be good to define these *before* the parameters, because that would avoid the forward reference to DAT_MAXIMUM_LOSS. * Section 9.3/9.4: Are you considering these to be mutually exclusive? Or is a HELLO message processed first by 9.3, and then by 9.4? Since there is considerable overlap in processing between the two, and it would presumably be wrong to do that twice, I guess you must assume them to be mutually exclusive. But I presume HELLO messages arrive in incoming packets, so 9.3 sounds like it ought to apply to them. If I guessed right, then I suggest revising 9.3 to start "For each incoming packet that is not a HELLO message, ..." * Section 10.2: IIUC steps 5.3 & 5.4 are just the hard way of saying: bitrate := MAX(L_DAT_rx_bitrate, DAT_MINIMUM_BITRATE)