Re: Recharter proposal draft (was Re: Poll for virtual interim meeting in the week of September 25th)

Hi Ronald,

Thanks for your presentation in meeting 119 which included your view draft
of the charter,

regards
AB

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 8:22 AM Abdussalam Baryun <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Ronald, and all,
>
> I still believe that I need (or/and WG may need) a draft to follow and
> check or update, so that we should not repeat discussing same issues.
> However, I will try to make a draft and submit on the list that summaries
> all our previous discussions on the lsit/meeting. My comments/respond to
> some previous views are below,
>
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 6:31 PM Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Abdussalam,
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ronald,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think if there is a *recharter proposal* prepared by WG
>> chair/participant as a start, so we can discuss on the list before
>> virtual_meeting, so it will help in the meeting discussion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, that can certainly help. I intend to post a “strawman” charter text
>> before the meeting. It cannot be more than that until we decide on the Work
>> Items to take on. (Obviously, “Maintenance and Extensions of {OLSRv2,
>> Babel, DLEP}” can already be added).
>>
>
> I requested before we have a draft from WG chairs to discuss or a
> presentation document (material) to mention the history or points what we
> discussed before, because IMHO discussing without draft did not work.
> However, for me my updated answer and understanding so far is the following:
>
> - we discussed before many twice the re-charter without a draft but we
> still don't have clear points,
>
> - in the last meeting minutes AD remarks was:
> "Jim. On the charter discussion, I think,  one of the things as the AD, I
> was frankly disappointed on was a very small amount of response to it on
> the mailing list. So in order for me to even consider the recharter. I need
> to see people get engaged on that mailing list and you know, responding to
> what's being requested by the chairs in terms of what should we work on,
> and they've listed a whole bunch of things. And whether you actually
> personally will be able to do so. I'm going to let this go for a while. I
> think between now and Brisbane, think we need to have that conversation on
> the mailing list. I don't think we can make any decisions right now. I
> encourage everybody to please Get on the mailing list. Respond to the
> chairs, let's have that conversation And then, hopefully, we can get to a
> point where you know, there is actually work to be done that we can show in
> that charter."
>
> - My feedback to the AD is that from my understanding of the past,
> there was respond on the mailing list before but there was no draft that
> taken the notes and analysed all opinions (it should be in the past
> mailing_list or past meetings minutes not sure which ones).
> - The DELP drafts are updated and will be submitted to IESG.
> - There are three drafts requesting for this WG adoption but still waiting
> (draft are now dated expired)
> - 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.
> - There are many IETF WG are using our WG protocols as a reference/support
> for their work.
> - Example of use of our experimental RFC3561/AODVv1: the RPL_AODV was
> adopted by before by ROLL WG and that work was submitted to IESG.
>
> Overall, IMHO I still continue request that we make a recharter_draft and
> then discuss it while updating it (because discussing without draft did not
> work), at least we can update and know where we are within the discussions
> and updates. Therefore, will try my best to do something (which will
> include what was pointed above but in more details/references and submit on
> the list, so I will more easily discuss it when we get to the agenda point
> within this coming meeting.
>
> Best regards,
> AB
>

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