Re: [manet] draft-ietf-olsrv2-multipath-09

[Jiazi YI <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alvaro:

Thanks very much for your advices.

<snip>

> If I read this thread correctly, part of the reason for referencing
> RFC6554 is to use the format and other functionality (compression?) in
> MANET networks.  I don't see (provided the right justification) a reason
> for not reuse the packets and compression mechanisms specified there (if
> that is what MANET needs/wants).
>

Yes, correct.


>
>
> Having said all that, I think that a good first step would be to talk to
> the 6man Chairs about the need/intent.  They will probably want clear
> justification (use cases) and, eventually, the specification (which I think
> can point to RFC6554 for packet format, etc).  I think both could be
> covered I a single document.  I suggest having the WG Chairs do that
> initial approach.
>

We will discuss with the WG chairs to see how to communicate with the 6man
chairs and ask for their advices.


>
>
> Now to a slightly separate topic.  Even though the WG (in the updated
> charter [3]) is responsible to work on "maintenance of OLSR", this work
> really goes beyond my definition of "maintenance" because of the
> significant effort that may be needed (not just in writing, but cross-WG
> coordination, etc.).  I really want the WG to focus on the specifically
> chartered items and hope that we can complete them within the milestone
> dates.  To be clear: I'm not asking you not to do this work, I want the WG
> Chairs to prioritize appropriately and this work
> (draft-ietf-olsrv2-multipath) being currently tagged as Experimental
> doesn't seem to raise in priority to me [*].
>

The multipath routing in MANET has attracted lots of interests in academia.
olsrv2-multipath has already several implementations, verified in both
field tests and simulations.  We believe now it's the right time to have it
clearly specified and request for more experience from the community --
that's why we prudently aim for experimental track.

Of course, As a WG, the priority is achieving the milestones, but I don't
think it would preclude having extensions to OLSRv2, which is part of the
charter also. In fact, IIRC, during the recharter discussion, several
extensions for OLSRv2 were proposed. The WG finished with using the term
"The MANET WG is responsible for the *maintenance* of OLSRv2 [RFC 7181],
NHDP [RFC 6130] and the Generalized MANET Packet/Message Format [RFC5444],
and their *extensions*.", instead of listing possible extensions
explicitly.

regards

Jiazi


>
> Thanks!
>
> Alvaro.
>
>
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-spring-ipv6-use-cases
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-manet/
>
> [*] I doubt that 6man will want to put in an extension (even if it's
> already defied in RFC6554) for an Experimental effort.  I of course may be
> wrong and the Experimental nature may make it easier in their eyes to
> simply reference RFC6554.
>