Re: What was the Chameleon disaster?

I’ve done work that I think got me to abstract concept level - but unpublished. But even if published - and I don’t have access to what I previously wrote, I would have to recreate it - that’s the lesser problem compared to that of people with the requirement and commitment.

> On 15 Oct 2023, at 16:39, Henning Rogge <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Getting a good concept for a hybrid protocol that provides an
> advantage and works would already be a challenge... It's a similar
> level of problem to a "good MANET multicast routing protocol" or a
> "good routing metric for narrow band/low-datarate links"... I have yet
> to see a good solution for either of them on an abstract concept
> level, so I would not hold my breath for expecting a working prototype
> soon.
> 
> Henning
> 
> 
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 5:35 PM Christopher Dearlove
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> I wouldn’t really promote it to the level of disaster. It was one of various things that have been presented to the group that fell well short of being worth taking time over. But we moved on and I’d forgotten it until Henning’s post reminded me of it (just the name wasn’t enough).
>> 
>> I think there is, in theory at least, at least one way to create a hybrid protocol, I believe I mentioned it in a recent post. But it would take people with a real commitment - which usually does, and should, mean real use cases - to take this through to even experimental status. Expect to take a few years to accomplish this. (Yes, I know it might seem it shouldn’t take that long, but it will.) I’d go as far as contributing ideas I have had, and maybe a bit more, but I do not have that commitment.
>> 
>>> On 14 Oct 2023, at 15:00, Henning Rogge <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> google for "ietf manet chameleon"...
>>> 
>>> or use this link:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ramrekha-manet-cml-01
>>> 
>>> Someone put AODV and OLSR (v1) into one protocol, decided that it was
>>> trivial to know when to switch and called it "hybrid/adaptive"... the
>>> WG had a few "pointy" questions the person could not answer... and
>>> because his "hybrid protocol" was already done, the author wasn't
>>> really interesting in building on it or fixing things.
>>> 
>>> Henning Rogge
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 9:57 PM Stevens, Jim A Collins
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:11:22 +0200, Henning Rogge <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> | > Hybrid (proactive /reactive) Routing protocol
>>>> 
>>>> | MANET WG failed at "reactive routing" because of non-technical issues... I don't think Hybrid protocols would do much better. I still remember the
>>>> 
>>>> | Chameleon disaster.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Henning - What was the Chameleon disaster?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Jim Stevens
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>> 

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet