Re: [manet] What was the Chameleon disaster?

Christopher Dearlove <> Wed, 18 October 2023 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B48C1522AF for <>; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.103
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.103 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0FL7qkG_u6mC for <>; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::532]) (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 2C659C180DCD for <>; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-53dd3f169d8so10685176a12.3 for <>; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1697597525; x=1698202325;; h=to:references:message-id:date:cc:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=gYNCWastgTIz9Q1MUh1Iyoxjrcsi4rYPPGC06SoBKNo=; b=SQhrMV5kKLjc4AstGz5FnA+hRAqbVE3C86QRYAFqEBn+eKDL3n4KujSRWISEVq66Rr jwCDQef4B+euuJeF4nXbWy87d4hxh5Jg6D42D+00+UEujbbLKqUYgO7mzqygiWFAaYa5 mF0KKz4tJHK+OYd2MZkj9BiCUxgQiTYt9AP6ooV/G7BsRm3z1Y778kFbRfifaeuYm4ip qIUQHx8kOYQkMq+3mlPLXJhOGbw3/kUxrgAw3uQL8qoC+smDdrSLA6AipE4QOU6O8Guz g/n+uCslGukmc/az5h7MyQcdsYHGWEmB4P9uo8ShU4xEwI23jh3BjsRr1hTSfQJ9p8UP gqHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1697597525; x=1698202325; h=to:references:message-id:date:cc:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gYNCWastgTIz9Q1MUh1Iyoxjrcsi4rYPPGC06SoBKNo=; b=vqZJZQqHuuIJ4eQ6H7RQyVezeEMkmKStJtBB4HEWQRMSFXDpmgEHW6jSR59PY6jp31 r8pa4uzultVSFTYPzTU+3k/vKVUTbY2dGOzcPKwqm2rHRVLfEn8Fy1MUIrAxVOXgFyYG K+UlSsaISz61FqVlpHHDEv32LFgoS4+YK3rhQpR8Z0ZuDJaUwQMNtY3z2pK9rDak8JAw e2DmjVYNQarOHZrzCXERiwcT+InePGVpIR8WOMPa2Q1d+mg1o+hZP/zR/RsywRLVi2U1 x8E+UqHRKU3Hyx8ikKZBeOEQSWnhWwg2bT9VeEvCpmaT+Jy7h6cQIY7S7lS4Ygfl/YEA F9AA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyK01WXiOhWUrkco25e1SY4rUs1cHkrz5P3Xl8//xniuYaAVfJ1 G85Ek35K1Z/CW2wyky6xCv3/Ut99RoA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHyRXfT1QCQbw2/qMFBCAp+RUksy/D3g09QibEojCcc4uTlAdT2VXdaHURiWTuNvjioI/Nszg==
X-Received: by 2002:a50:d0d4:0:b0:530:ccf7:37af with SMTP id g20-20020a50d0d4000000b00530ccf737afmr3095325edf.12.1697597524618; Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:52:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id o17-20020a509b11000000b0053e8bb112adsm2103847edi.53.2023. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:52:03 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-7051E1A7-7223-476E-B75F-510E462036D8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Christopher Dearlove <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 03:51:52 +0100
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Abdussalam Baryun <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20B101)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] What was the Chameleon disaster?
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: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 02:52:29 -0000

When you say tried to add to your efforts in your WG, you had noticed I’m an author or co-author of 15 RFCs in this WG? I think the second largest number of any participant.

And, no. The proposal in referred to in this thread title wasn’t a good starting point.

> On 17 Oct 2023, at 15:42, Abdussalam Baryun <> wrote:
> It is Good that we can get UK researchers participating/presenting and they tried to add to our efforts in our WG. I think we do need presentations/comments in this WG so we can get more participation especially from  Asia or Africa. 
> However, IMHO the real reason of not re-presenting is not only no interest but also I think it is difficult to build work within this WG, and hopefully WG ADs can make it easier in the future, as we had seen in past our reactive routing AODVv2 [1] (have taken  about 10 years building in this WG, which was important milestone, but deleted in July 2016) was killed by this IETF WG, which I think was real disappointing for me in this WG, which we should never forget after our long discussions and effort of many years for manet reactive routing milestone (may make some participants/authors not interested in this WG to present at). Then the AODVv2 work has been presented to another IETF WG to be build with some modifications, however, someone may comment that that reactive routing work maybe found a better place to be built at [2].
> Additionally, there are many work that can be done in this WG, but was not and there is possibility that some IETF participants prefered to make new WG and new charter to make their efforts easier to build, work and progress. I think IETF WGs need to be more acknowledging work/presentation to come in and not to make it easier to go away to other SDOs.
> Finally, the hybrid routing noted in the thread's subject was proposed by one UK university researchers for the purpose of disaster response use cases. So I think that draft/presentation was a Good start for this WG to think/discuss about a disaster_use_case of being solved by hybrid routing or by only proactive as OLSRv2.
> AB
> [1]
> [2]
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list