Re: What was the Chameleon disaster?

When you say tried to add to your efforts in your WG, you had noticed I’m an author or co-author of 15 RFCs in this WG? I think the second largest number of any participant.

And, no. The proposal in referred to in this thread title wasn’t a good starting point.

> On 17 Oct 2023, at 15:42, Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi MANET WG,
> 
> It is Good that we can get UK researchers participating/presenting and they tried to add to our efforts in our WG. I think we do need presentations/comments in this WG so we can get more participation especially from  Asia or Africa. 
> 
> However, IMHO the real reason of not re-presenting is not only no interest but also I think it is difficult to build work within this WG, and hopefully WG ADs can make it easier in the future, as we had seen in past our reactive routing AODVv2 [1] (have taken  about 10 years building in this WG, which was important milestone, but deleted in July 2016) was killed by this IETF WG, which I think was real disappointing for me in this WG, which we should never forget after our long discussions and effort of many years for manet reactive routing milestone (may make some participants/authors not interested in this WG to present at). Then the AODVv2 work has been presented to another IETF WG to be build with some modifications, however, someone may comment that that reactive routing work maybe found a better place to be built at [2].
> 
> Additionally, there are many work that can be done in this WG, but was not and there is possibility that some IETF participants prefered to make new WG and new charter to make their efforts easier to build, work and progress. I think IETF WGs need to be more acknowledging work/presentation to come in and not to make it easier to go away to other SDOs.
> 
> Finally, the hybrid routing noted in the thread's subject was proposed by one UK university researchers for the purpose of disaster response use cases. So I think that draft/presentation was a Good start for this WG to think/discuss about a disaster_use_case of being solved by hybrid routing or by only proactive as OLSRv2.
> 
> AB
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-16
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-18
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

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