Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless communication

["Charles E. Perkins" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Paul,

Paul Lambert wrote:

>> I am almost certain they
>> should be considered out of scope for the document
>> under discussion.
>>     
>
> In looking at the reference in the charter for "ad hoc" (RFC 2501) the defined MANET is a Chimera - a mythical beast made of the parts of many other animals. It is a shame that smaller monsters are out of scope (like 802.11 ad hoc) ...
>   

I am thoroughly mystified by your reply.  Just because certain
topics are out of scope for the small document by Emmanuel
and me, does not mean they are out of scope for [autoconf].
Isn't it possible to have more than one document?  Shouldn't we
collect requirements in a requirements document instead of every
other document that might be written?

To be explicit, I am wholly in favor of making sure that
the results of [autoconf] are applicable to 802.11 ad hoc.
Did I say anything to imply otherwise?

Regards,
Charlie P.

> Paul
>
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:21 AM
>> To: Paul Lambert
>> Cc: Emmanuel Baccelli; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Autoconf] updated draft on aspects of multi-hop wireless
>> communication
>>
>>
>> Hello Paul,
>>
>> The document isn't intended to suggest a list of work
>> items for consideration by [autoconf].  Instead, it is just
>> a description of common properties of radio and other
>> wireless links.  These properties are not quite universal,
>> but they are widespread.  Some of them can be alleviated
>> a bit by mechanisms below the network protocol level.
>>
>> So we are not suggesting requirements or work items.
>> Instead, we simply wanted to make as clear as possible
>> some of the characteristics of the transmission media
>> whose widespread availability is motivating the work
>> of [autoconf].
>>
>> Your list of issues would, I think, all fit best in a
>> requirements document.  I am almost certain they
>> should be considered out of scope for the document
>> under discussion.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.
>>
>>
>> Paul Lambert wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The draft-baccelli-multi-hop-wireless-communication-01 provides an
>>>       
>> interesting list of issues that might be addressed by this working group.
>>     
>>> >From a quick review it does not appear to address:
>>>  - ad hoc network coalescing.  Coalescing has clear implications for
>>>    IP address assignment
>>>  - there is no mention of multicast versus unicast issues.  Perhaps
>>>    since the document makes all links potentially asymmetric and
>>>    unreliable there is no distinction.  At least for 802.11 ad hoc
>>>    I find significant implications.
>>>  - it does not address link security establishment
>>>    The process of setting up the link security is out of scope, but as
>>>    I've mentioned in earlier emails this has a clear impact on available
>>>    networking mechanisms.
>>>    It is also a very important architectural consideration to ensure
>>>       
>> that
>>     
>>>    IP address assignment has some level of security.
>>>
>>> Asymmetric links in all "ad hoc" networks.  Is it possible to partition
>>>       
>> our problem statements so that this is just one of several optional
>> attributes that must be addressed?
>>     
>>> Most modern wireless MAC layers have reliable unicast.  I can see some
>>>       
>> broadcast only links - like satellite broadcast, but outside military
>> applications I am not familiar with broadly deployed commercial wireless
>> networking technologies that are based on asymmetric unicast transmissions.
>> Perhaps someone on this list could point me to the technologies that they
>> are considering for this requirement.
>>     
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>
>