Re: [manet] IETF 118 Minutes available

Abdussalam Baryun <> Fri, 17 November 2023 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36F8CC151076 for <>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:36:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 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, 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] 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 2pkEefFz6tLi for <>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (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 1051AC14CE5F for <>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c5028e5b88so33771761fa.3 for <>; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:36:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1700253396; x=1700858196;; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=UByuhdIZxaC+Kr3GOHSODtpwYuo1Y/cEBVF9/N8V46Y=; b=P9Jga1QPvWe71pq0FjNPBnVZU8gSa2ivZz/qN1LdBtfdTMO7LNvWHVQpQhICrxY01K 5SIwYIojn/aktxFvdHgh+6nHSd21BZFNplrE/mmWLRj9mEU/ZQy9//UX7RE2JYd8cbi+ WRKP/BkdhdOHXI4aECgz0euxhDYtjpw5GZmO15EHyTky8EH3Vke5rbgolS8A7TxxFc1D LCCHttgyeBJdtRV1DXcRQYXPfbQBkWpQMq7T2PEDPt6sSpO6x9bY3YaRVAZoiq0zy2xr BbN+RRD8/1c48uqye2ZXf8MeOCQfJMmn1MyAMnq3hbTahnWBPpi1VaT674lIKS9JT8ck pd0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20230601; t=1700253396; x=1700858196; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=UByuhdIZxaC+Kr3GOHSODtpwYuo1Y/cEBVF9/N8V46Y=; b=EQQ4canLBKatUT1vZw18yzI9/2zxLNzQYJySDCFcwb6WNUbbsHuGKfn8YdEFTyRb3Q D1zdyIQXS66HtkzpE/MwkF2uhyAi+ORJQy9W76h4F18S5W/5xv1xie9pGTFCjlrVcdx6 BhZ3uyI9s945rI3KkLGjMnLZ2plM2bj2l75ohC3J9AbujEbnkH3rx7JpZw3zL3YHBTQ0 HGWbQpqlKIUNTr/o+73kbq6S9hknrYKarfXooWi+D7EfiD6wuwP0I3Dr+PMH6HwJrak8 Y4VBIdiv2AMOp67Ez45h0nH6oKgvWoKBj2hoqrxr4m3FCxEL1Wlv+ULdVIL+iqPR48Nd 9bZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxQB26+mn7QLGhLbayYsUhtnuPYhWqdwUy442Jg2s1Ym3dqDzZP KISeuOw354OHAOTsARdYCZkwjIobZPLSJAPJzvqiDOSA
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGv4aUFZMEhRI1/Oy6sOzNHUUb1ynPopzGjgVxtK9fNghxju4kHZq8IsazQZnE8YnfyTXIFrWT9FbS7SRvDDZI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b5ba:0:b0:2c6:f1a9:e74 with SMTP id f26-20020a2eb5ba000000b002c6f1a90e74mr418597ljn.34.1700253395952; Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:36:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 22:37:00 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Christopher Dearlove <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b1a68b060a5f17a3"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [manet] IETF 118 Minutes available
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: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 20:36:39 -0000

>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.


On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:14 PM Christopher Dearlove <> 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 <>
> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 8:49 PM Christopher Dearlove <
>> 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,=