Re: [manet] IETF 118 Minutes available

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

>From my understanding yes two options  as you explained (and that what I
meant to say also in my reply), which mostly both depend on the authors'
proposal first, and then on the WG opinion. From last meeting 118, I
proposed that AODVv2 to be published for this WG again but the two
WG_opinions were that we need to notice any implementation for AODVv2 not
only simulations. I think the manet-wg-participants in the 118-meeting
meant to say they want open-source-implementation, because IMHO it is known
that AODV is already implemented and used for industry.

AB

On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:14 PM Christopher Dearlove <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Those are different options. At the moment it isn’t - unless has a new
> identity I’ve missed - a live draft at all. The WG decided to abandon it,
> but it was later brought back as an individual draft, but even that is now
> long expired. It could as a first step easily be brought back again as an
> individual draft. Then there are (at least) two options. One option is that
> it could become an individual submission RFC, which doesn’t require this
> WG, but this WG might well be asked for input on it and which might affect
> its progress to an RFC. The other option is that once there is a draft
> again, it could be adopted as a WG draft, reversing the previous decision.
> I have no idea how the chairs, AD and WG would feel about either.
>
> In either case (assuming the WG is consulted for an individual RFC, and
> definitely if re-adoption by the WG is considered) the previous technical
> issues would have to be looked at - I don’t know if or how well they were
> addressed in the last individual draft, and it is suggested that there’s
> been progress since.
>
> On 17 Nov 2023, at 19:53, Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 8:49 PM Christopher Dearlove <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Link to document? The datatracker shows draft-manet-aodvv2 last version
>> -16 in 2016 and draft-perkins-aodvv2 (not a WG document) last draft -03 in
>> 2019. Are we talking about a new ID or an individual submission RFC or
>> what? It’s not a WG document at this point.
>>
>
>
> Yes, IMO it is individual draft now and wg-draft was deleted before, so
> they need to republish it for the WG and propose review/adoption,=
>
>
>