Re: [manet] Recharter Discussion

[James Nguyen <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Justin Dean <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> > + 1

I'm interested in "border behavior between MANET networks and fixed IP
network infrastructures."  Is there any existing work on this?

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.
>
> > +1

> 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)
>
> >  I'm still unclear what would be the in the document.  As of now, there
isn't a clear management solution for MANET (eg.g, cloud computing, SDN).
As for management protocols, RESTCONF will soon be standardized, but
transport needs to be addressed for MANET.  CoMI seems to be a good fit for
MANET, but it'll be far from being matured.  Anyhow, if we work and publish
this document, it'll be out of date in a year or two.  I can volunteer to
work on this, but I need some guidance.

On a separate note, for all future protocols, will we continue to develop
MIB or YANG?

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>


-- 
James Nguyen
Email: [e-mail]