Re: IETF 118 Minutes available

AODVv1 is implemented. But there are issues with it that the WG’s view (and mine) were that they needed to be addressed by AODVv2, just as OLSRv2 improved on OLSRv1. And the does AODVv2 use the 5444 format? It needs to if to use the MANET UDP port, but it could use another as AODVv1 did, if it can persuade IANA of the requirement. But if it does use 5444 that’s a significant change in implementation. As would be some of the other changes, such as ensuring bidirectionally of links.

Whatever improvements/changes have been or will be made, it’s said - I have no reason to doubt it, but no personal knowledge - there is no available AODVv2 implementation. Available AODVv1 implementations - I don’t know how many of those there are either - would not be anything like sufficient.

> On 17 Nov 2023, at 20:37, Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> From my understanding yes two options  as you explained (and that what I meant to say also in my reply), which mostly both depend on the authors' proposal first, and then on the WG opinion. From last meeting 118, I proposed that AODVv2 to be published for this WG again but the two WG_opinions were that we need to notice any implementation for AODVv2 not only simulations. I think the manet-wg-participants in the 118-meeting meant to say they want open-source-implementation, because IMHO it is known that AODV is already implemented and used for industry.
> 
> AB
> 
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:14 PM Christopher Dearlove <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> Those are different options. At the moment it isn’t - unless has a new identity I’ve missed - a live draft at all. The WG decided to abandon it, but it was later brought back as an individual draft, but even that is now long expired. It could as a first step easily be brought back again as an individual draft. Then there are (at least) two options. One option is that it could become an individual submission RFC, which doesn’t require this WG, but this WG might well be asked for input on it and which might affect its progress to an RFC. The other option is that once there is a draft again, it could be adopted as a WG draft, reversing the previous decision. I have no idea how the chairs, AD and WG would feel about either.
>> 
>> In either case (assuming the WG is consulted for an individual RFC, and definitely if re-adoption by the WG is considered) the previous technical issues would have to be looked at - I don’t know if or how well they were addressed in the last individual draft, and it is suggested that there’s been progress since.
>> 
>>> On 17 Nov 2023, at 19:53, Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 8:49 PM Christopher Dearlove <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>> Link to document? The datatracker shows draft-manet-aodvv2 last version -16 in 2016 and draft-perkins-aodvv2 (not a WG document) last draft -03 in 2019. Are we talking about a new ID or an individual submission RFC or what? It’s not a WG document at this point.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, IMO it is individual draft now and wg-draft was deleted before, so they need to republish it for the WG and propose review/adoption,=
>>

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