Re: Discussion of WG charter draft
Abdussalam Baryun <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.manet |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CADnDZ88=r5kDM3Hz0Ay+0=9GMm_E87xbUZ5WQmRw4-f2wKdFJw@mail.gmail.com> |
update to my points with Ronald's as from meeting: - The MANET WG is responsible for the maintenance of OLSRv2 [RFC 7181], NHDP [RFC 6130] and the Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format [RFC5444], and their extensions – Keep, obvious. Potential topics: ○ Guidance on use of (lesser known) OLSRv2 features to accommodate specific use cases (informational document) ○ Hybrid proactive / reactive operation based on an OLSRv2 extension ○ Hybrid proactive / DTN operation based an OLSRv2 extension ○ Better MPR selection heuristics ○ Guidance on OLSRv2 restart ○ RFC 7779 (DAT Metric) to Proposed Standard ○ RFC 7722 (Multi-Topology Extension to OLSRv2) to Proposed Standard ○ Others? - Potential new work items on the revised charter: ● DLEP Maintenance & Extensions – Obvious ● Babel Maintenance & Extensions – Obvious ● Babel for IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) Mesh – For discussion ● Energy-efficient routing in MANETs – For discussion ● New approaches to multicast in MANETs – For discussion ○ Bitstring-based (inspired by BIER) ○ Federation of heterogeneous MANETs with different (proprietary) solutions ● Autonomous / ‘asynchronous’ management for MANETs – For discussion, more speculative (Former AD: “I don’t want to see a DTNMA for MANET”) ● Reactive MANET routing protocol – A previous AODVv2 effort was dropped ● Hybrid (pro-active / reactive) routing protocol – For discussion, need Reactive first? ● RFC 2501bis, Informational overview of MANET Routing Performance Evaluation – For discussion ● Other topics that WG participants would want to work on? On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:26 AM Abdussalam Baryun < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > This is a draft of my understanding/update on the re-charter proposal with > related discussions of previous meetings/list_comments, > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > The WG Charter Proposal: > > Updating MANET use case work > Proactive Routing: OLSRv2 development work > DLEP development work > Multicast Implementation and defining problems to be solved > Reactive Routing: AODVv2 implementation and adoption (check ref [2] [3]) > Reactive Routing: DSRv2 implementation > > Milestones: > - The DLEP drafts are updated and will be submitted to IESG. > - Implementations of experimental WG RFCs > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > My understanding from previous discussions and last meeting [1]: > - There are three drafts requesting for this WG adoption but still waiting > (draft are now dated expired) > - I proposed evaluation of all MANET experimental RFCs within last meeting > - I proposed update of RFC2501 and write a draft for MANET use cases > within last meeting. > - There are some suggestions to develop RFC7181/OLSRv2 for future if there > are demand (some comments on list from participants). > - The AODVv2 draft is requesting WG adoption > - There is interest and welling from Charlie to work on AODVv2 (with > submitted draft, and presentation for this meeting) > - Two participants requesting that new work to be implemented in open > source software (OSS) (e.g. as willingness of participation of > implementation in OSS is not clear in this WG). > - There is interest and welling from me to work on manet use cases and > technologies (mentioned in meeting, work in progress, not yet submitted > draft_00) > - There is interest and welling from Ronald to work on manet multicast > (mentioned in meeting, and not yet submitted draft_00), even though there > was some comments in the last meeting from one participant that > manet_muticast has problems. > - There is interest and welling from me to work on DSRv2 (mentioned in > meeting, and not yet submitted draft), also interest and welling to > implement. > - The Babel protocol development and new_work to be included and there are > wellings to support as participants of their WG joined with MANET WG. > - No clear interest from the WG on hybrid routing, but there was some > discussions on the list. > > +++++++++++++++++++ > > References: > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-118-manet/ > [2] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/qEyyrWc6rKkcHlk2JGU1cF-wo2Q/ > [3] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Nr6cgHgSU17PoSqHuFCfxCBwRyc/ > > > > _______________________________________________ manet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet