Re: [manet] Discussion of WG charter draft

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi MANET WG Chairs, and all,

I thank you for your presentations within our ietf119 meeting dated
20/3/2024 and your answers to my input within the meeting as
I requested from the WG Chairs to present a clear plan or milestone or
timing of such re-charter,
so if I understood your answers it was as that; we need participants to do
documents/drafts-00 and then we make plan/timing for re-charter which we
can be preparing draft and then know plan for submitting new_charter for
approval.

However, still I think we need mostly a *clear plan* from this WG addressed
by chairs for the below reasons.

- I made my draft of re-charter (shown in this thread) and I see there are
differences between mine and the WG chairs, so please adjust to mine or
please discuss with me, or please discuss your draft/presented_work on the
list or within this thread, so we can work together the path/plan.

- In previous meetings [1, 2] of MANET WG and on the Babel_mailing_list [3,
4], it was stated that by WG chairs of both WGs that the *plan* is to join
participants of Babel within MANET WG, so that was mentioned to merge in
MANET and that we re-charter MANET WG,
 but now I found out dated 20/3/2024 that the Babel WG has approved (i.e
not sure maybe it is a system error) their re-charter draft-02 [5] with no
much discussion or no meeting in IETF and even no much discussions on their
list. We MANET meet alot in IETF and did discuss the re-charter, and we
have some important drafts, while I am preparing some, but I am not sure
what is happening/plan, so would please need discussion.

- IMHO there was a change of some of the meeting_re-charter_presentations
from the WG chairs without discussions of that on the list. So I am not
sure why was the changes made or why the plan was changed (i.e. removal of
Babel maintenance).

- In this meeting 119 WG chairs have presented the expected charter but did
not mention the ones welling to do effort in this WG which is very
important as per one email I received from WG co-chair before.

- In this meeting 119 WG chairs have presented the expected charter but did
not include my interest of DSRv2, but included other participants'
interests.

- In this meeting 119 there was not much time for agreeing on the presented
possible work to be done within the new-charter, so we need to agree on the
works and agree on who is welling to do such work otherwise we should
remove it from the expected work.

- IMHO any ietf participant that will do/welling_to_do new work will need
to see a *group plan* or a *discussed plan* or future road for their
efforts. So always guidance is good to be had by participants to work
together, otherwise we will work separately and most probably will not
produce a re-charter/adopted_draft.

- IMHO of IETF charter proposals are done usually when groups start they
start meeting with two or three participants that are very active within
discussions and mostly few of those are the leaders of the group, so if
there are old groups and re-charter is needed then the leaders make the
guidance/plan effort to group_lead, and so documents will flow very easily
after clear path. That was why my request of plan within the 119 meeting,
and that request is still requested by me.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-117-manet-202307260000/
[2]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-interim-2023-manet-01-202309261300/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/70jH6HQq9YvEL2KOc6JULc_LSew/
[4]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/?gbt=1&index=70jH6HQq9YvEL2KOc6JULc_LSew
[5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-babel/

Therefore, I think we need a plan/agreed_draft for re-charter, and please
help me/WG with a clear plan/milestones that we can work/discuss forward
and we can make more drafts/discussions/decisions.

I prepared a draft for myself and published here in the mailing list as it
is my reference re-charter (and will continue this for future so that we
agree on one clear on), so until we get discussions/consensus we change
according to that.

Best regards
AB

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 10:42 AM Abdussalam Baryun <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> update to my points with Ronald's as from meeting:
>
>  - 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 – Keep, obvious. Potential topics:
>
>  ○ Guidance on use of (lesser known) OLSRv2 features to accommodate
> specific use cases (informational document)
>  ○ Hybrid proactive / reactive operation based on an OLSRv2 extension
>  ○ Hybrid proactive / DTN operation based an OLSRv2 extension
>  ○ Better MPR selection heuristics
>  ○ Guidance on OLSRv2 restart
>  ○ RFC 7779 (DAT Metric) to Proposed Standard
>  ○ RFC 7722 (Multi-Topology Extension to OLSRv2) to Proposed Standard
>  ○ Others?
>
>  - Potential new work items on the revised charter:
>  ● DLEP Maintenance & Extensions – Obvious
>  ● Babel Maintenance & Extensions – Obvious
>  ● Babel for IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) Mesh – For discussion
>  ● Energy-efficient routing in MANETs – For discussion
>  ● New approaches to multicast in MANETs – For discussion
>  ○ Bitstring-based (inspired by BIER)
>  ○ Federation of heterogeneous MANETs with different (proprietary)
> solutions
>  ● Autonomous / ‘asynchronous’ management for MANETs – For discussion,
> more speculative (Former AD: “I don’t want to see a DTNMA for MANET”) ●
> Reactive MANET routing protocol – A previous AODVv2 effort was dropped
>  ● Hybrid (pro-active / reactive) routing protocol – For discussion, need
> Reactive first?
> ● RFC 2501bis, Informational overview of MANET Routing Performance
> Evaluation – For discussion
>  ● Other topics that WG participants would want to work on?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 9:26 AM Abdussalam Baryun <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> This is a draft of my understanding/update on the re-charter proposal
>> with related discussions of previous meetings/list_comments,
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> The WG Charter Proposal:
>>
>> Updating MANET use case work
>> Proactive Routing: OLSRv2 development work
>> DLEP development work
>> Multicast Implementation and defining problems to be solved
>> Reactive Routing: AODVv2 implementation and adoption (check ref [2] [3])
>> Reactive Routing: DSRv2 implementation
>>
>> Milestones:
>> - The DLEP drafts are updated and will be submitted to IESG.
>> - Implementations of experimental WG RFCs
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> My understanding from previous discussions and last meeting [1]:
>> - There are three drafts requesting for this WG adoption but still
>> waiting (draft are now dated expired)
>> - I proposed evaluation of all MANET experimental RFCs within last meeting
>> - I proposed update of RFC2501 and write a draft for MANET use cases
>> within last meeting.
>> - There are some suggestions to develop RFC7181/OLSRv2 for future if
>> there are demand (some comments on list from participants).
>> - The AODVv2 draft is requesting WG adoption
>> - There is interest and welling from Charlie to work on AODVv2 (with
>> submitted draft, and presentation for this meeting)
>> - Two participants requesting that new work to be implemented in open
>> source software (OSS) (e.g. as willingness of participation of
>> implementation in OSS is not clear in this WG).
>> - There is interest and welling from me to work on manet use cases and
>> technologies (mentioned in meeting, work in progress, not yet submitted
>> draft_00)
>> - There is interest and welling from Ronald to work on manet multicast
>> (mentioned in meeting, and not yet submitted draft_00), even though there
>> was some comments in the last meeting from one participant that
>> manet_muticast has problems.
>> - There is interest and welling from me to work on DSRv2 (mentioned in
>> meeting, and not yet submitted draft), also interest and welling to
>> implement.
>> - The Babel protocol development and new_work to be included and there
>> are wellings to support as participants of their WG joined with MANET WG.
>> - No clear interest from the WG on hybrid routing, but there was some
>> discussions on the list.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> References:
>>
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-118-manet/
>> [2]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/qEyyrWc6rKkcHlk2JGU1cF-wo2Q/
>> [3]
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manet/Nr6cgHgSU17PoSqHuFCfxCBwRyc/
>>
>>
>>
>>