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

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

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 <
[e-mail]> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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
>