Re: [manet] What was the Chameleon disaster?

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi MANET WG,

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] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-manet-aodvv2-16
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-roll-aodv-rpl-18