Re: [manet] IETF 118 Minutes available

Christopher Dearlove <> Fri, 17 November 2023 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8ACC151990 for <>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:07:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.393
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H5qmFdEsjfV6 for <>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F12B4C15198F for <>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:07:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-32fd7fc9f19so1554551f8f.2 for <>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:07:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1700255253; x=1700860053;; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=E+LV+nhW3iKZ8TBc9Q2S8ASqsBJiON42qMcZlb8z6QE=; b=dlovW68yR+B+csvueptYeZX6P3qIGDV+ox8iwgQPvfU1LPKJ2XtmRW/FyTb5bLfZ7K XEFGU5n75rWKX3iI7OtpHDsCtsGSY1onMi+Fp359WK/rkk1xLajp0wK28GtgcNXq9MRb /lkhAC2ZszX4Crq9lN+f9r1Phl6fQw5Bei03iskPdGgB6tMsAbLPW0Dw0Z380ZdMV85V E0sXyu/V9JUR0cV3zB3x5aVJ4LrfjdyVTVvllTxE0BeJOTGZ+qmnNBLVRpqf2kVAS6iI 8o10PYiHrI6c2tLL/W/EFqvCadawZguZ515PCEO34Vr+rLw44EIEh6HDcKkef79Pvvrz T/yA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1700255253; x=1700860053; h=references:to:cc:in-reply-to:date:subject:mime-version:message-id :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=E+LV+nhW3iKZ8TBc9Q2S8ASqsBJiON42qMcZlb8z6QE=; b=r7d2EyFM0FHb1Gg+PRUIInP9MBLTq0/gsC0SKHbf8ugcS9FcyLhijXwNSxkhghKL1I CEEt2SLxv/Q5GTDFyv7n/Ml/KVwr7Tw4s4R9o7BKwXYIV0Yp4Q8b5jNxbtCELi2l0545 J1cjq5N7RM3H0nqRSOf5JoqqGgdD5vZpDzVN5oK/8w5D7XqtB0a20QmrDUtGcdsiX+4p 72IfxX6BOW2v7Kgx2B/oRxxTp8FJv9V7pyaMD+6h2GhabGOp2Tf3xGWf3X49GEMTN//0 wGKNw6QxWY+dRR0GJLbb0W7yRiCHqw3Z3p8499CmGoCZoD1RawXgVH4rRm6vCuTg/gkb TjoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzUFGrhSLcfXPlRzzXBgF/4oZ93LDnuvRO0ZVWPgU3TnsFYgM7M /2OCPP47qByt4lU2xxPBHTs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGWHx9lpXaOknjRZgr3yISzH7JHLL6378sSt92R5m1j2PEo2ZVe1/gBreKXbfX0aM60zv722Q==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:64c4:0:b0:32f:a48b:1e2b with SMTP id f4-20020a5d64c4000000b0032fa48b1e2bmr203162wri.5.1700255253086; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id c11-20020adffb0b000000b0032ddf2804ccsm3343673wrr.83.2023. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:07:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Christopher Dearlove <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BAA0A467-C1A4-493E-A458-F78927DB8E24"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.\))
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:07:18 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 118 Minutes available
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 21:07:37 -0000

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 <> 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 < <>> 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 < <>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 8:49 PM Christopher Dearlove < <>> 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,=