[manet] Recharter Discussion

Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com> Fri, 22 April 2016 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <bebemaster@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0ACB12EB09 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mIT4J6hXzNY3 for <manet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x233.google.com (mail-vk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E05E12EB23 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id n62so139753664vkb.0 for <manet@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:07:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=zsWd+atugkNadXEn6jWy/Z7MeOMN4/JO5VyotZkbNgY=; b=sKcpVbEksqiu03nut8fvYbqOCv8GDvYo2gi+FnhnQ35z6RgDyJXnJG9ZPHIgjyXbzL tz4GNCX4U5ErcbrUBLE3MRaVEpkAfSgRYaGP82kGCFY1DHb/JNlp2bs/lg76DYRavnAp yu3N2TmwcUptQ5kH1WnKTC7TVvPE1aDq1NHUiuJIXiHZkzMy/BLUToReC9VimS4kQ2ct YP/HR3A0t4o2qyQgy2MxjxaT4XD4LjYcbog1BO75uyGCMfJcM2YoViYAe7o5bshz3OoK IPHJEDiFj2JN5IifWKqtslugaY8QH8/6JlDvTnUqCJX04W5TaY1IWZ/9RaH9H9xlOzlH dqzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=zsWd+atugkNadXEn6jWy/Z7MeOMN4/JO5VyotZkbNgY=; b=HECfDOasWf5McRwtBdeWp6Vn5EmN1hX53c2Qf5rTTMBwEV9/C15w0uxF3L2yskXEiZ WYHotNsj5YVIHaC7a2nvGlcSJysDaNtZGzUB4VyqfZdRUKdB4H3W9mJIjUBVD8Licz6b TmjE6yVjOwSCyiXrAseD3CaNfjMY/FZv2TtehaokZ40HPN//7yaVljBxK+BImTJeLYOe pb9/oTwpgnurbn/2YC4lz2aZqwTfnN3NhwSPsDU7rAnEqhMqUblbi9Ton7BWP6j48xi2 rxSm0K+sLdoVh+BdqGRN1BDzQnZoKZCM5HfVPiUZTDa7F+lxtBSLw5MXiIu1kAWw0S/G TFeQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUpx2b6b/FqTbkR1u6eYk68fBNhz+VMWziPiHYuJSzsi8XaPAaxXAv7GFW2LPTtZVsZy2m/FIBtEV8/YQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.134.133 with SMTP id i127mr11014784vkd.153.1461337620362; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.31.62.67 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:07:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+-pDCfkchtgChMTon6yr2spdb0ypvgkEhbvYo_H0QehX62naQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Dean <bebemaster@gmail.com>
To: "manet@ietf.org" <manet@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11440cb6c240510531142d81"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/3_ZnorJZa9H7AQQzn5BmRcG1r4I>
Subject: [manet] Recharter Discussion
X-BeenThere: manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mobile Ad-hoc Networks <manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manet/>
List-Post: <mailto:manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>, <mailto:manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:07:03 -0000

I'll start things off by floating the draft re-charter which was presented
in Prague.

The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing
protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application
within both static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due
to node motion or other factors.

Approaches are intended to be relatively lightweight in nature,
suitable for multiple hardware and wireless environments, and address
scenarios where MANETs are deployed at the edges of an IP
infrastructure. Hybrid mesh infrastructures (e.g., a mixture of fixed
and mobile routers) should also be supported by MANET specifications
and management features.

The MANET WG is responsible for the maintenance of OLSRv2, AODVv2,
DLEP and NHPD. Of particular interest: border behavior between MANET
networks and fixed IP network infrastructures, enhance AODVv2 gateway
functionality; security enhancements, encryption security extensions
for RFC5444.

The MANET WG will standardize a multicast MANET protocol framework
based on previous work and lessons learned for scoped forwarding
within MANET networks.  As part of this framework the WG will produce
a well defined MANET multicast forwarding information base.

The WG will produce an informational draft outlining challenges and
best practices for deploying and managing MANET networks.

The MANET WG will interact with the PIM working group on issues
relating to the multicast work.  The WG will also pay attention to
other IETF and IRTF work that is addressing topics related to MANET
environments.

In summary, the WG will develop the following drafts:

MANET Management Document (Informational)
MANET Maintenance
 - RFC5444 Security extension (Standards)
 - Enhanced AODVv2 gateway extension (Standards)
MANET Multicast
 - Multicast FIB (Standards)


This will likely be considered too broad to pass.  We will likely need
to cut some and focus the work.  For me personally I know I have the
time and backing to work on the Multicast piece.

Justin