[manet] Re: Proposed tweaks to charter text

["Velt, R. (Ronald) in 't" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juliusz,

> 
> Hi, and sorry for the delay.

My turn to apologize for delay, times fifty.
 
> 
> qHere are a few proposed tweaks to the charter text.  Most are fairly
minor,
> the only one I feel strongly about is the removal of the sentence about
the
> overhead of proactive protocols.  I also feel it's important to mention
that the
> reliance of PIM-SM on RPF disqualifies it from (most) MANETs, lest
somebody
> be misled into thinking that PIM-SM can be easily tweaked.

Many thanks for these. I have updated the draft charter text, incorporating
all of your proposed changes: see attachment. However, I have comments on a
few of them, which you will find below.

> 
> 
> OLD: the protocol for exchange for link-related information
> 
> NEW: the protocol for exchange of link-related information

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: (mixtures of fixed and mobile routers)
> 
> NEW: (mixtures of fixed and mobile routers, and of wired and wireless
links)

Applied.

> 
> 
> OLD: Babel and OLSRv2 meet this requirement
> 
> NEW: Babel and OLSRv2 meet these requirements

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: manual configurations or the inference of state through routing or
>      transport protocols does not allow the router to make the best
>      decisions.
> 
> NEW: manual configurations or the inference of state through routing or
>      transport protocols is not practical.

Well, depending on how dynamic the network and its environment are (in terms
of node movement, propagation conditions, etc.), an ad hoc network may or
may not be able to function based on exchanged layer 3 routing protocol
information alone. Applied anyway.

> 
> 
> OLD: The main advantage of reactive solutions is low protocol overhead.
> 
> NEW: (remove this sentence)

Sentence removed. However, does this mean that you are of the opinion that
reactive ad hoc routing protocols will under no circumstances have an
advantage over pro-active ad hoc routing protocols?

> 
> 
> OLD: Traditional multicast routing solutions (e.g., PIM SM) tend to
perform
>      poorly in mobile ad hoc network environments, due to high churn of
>      maintaining group membership state in the nodes in frequently
changing
>      network topologies.
> 
> NEW: Traditional multicast routing solutions, such as PIM-SM, are not
>      applicable to the MANET environment due to their reliance on RPF as
>      well as to the high churn of maintaining group membership state in
>      frequently changing network topologies.

Applied.

> 
> 
> OLD: homogeneous link layer / physical layer technologies.
> 
> NEW: homogeneous link and physical layer technologies.

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: The WG will explore multicast routing solutions in support of
>      heterogeneous wireless technology configurations and federated mobile
>      ad hoc networks.
> 
> NEW: The WG will explore multicast routing solutions that are applicable
>      in mobile ad-hoc networks and heterogeneous network topologies.
> 

Applied, although I was rather attached to the "federated mobile ad hoc
networks" formulation.
 
> 
> OLD: Multicast solutions for mobile ad hoc networks based on heterogeneous
>      wireless technologies
> 
> NEW: Multicast solutions for mobile ad hoc networks based on
> heterogeneous,
>      wired and wireless technologies

Applied.

> 
> 
> OLD: Exploring feasibility of Standards Track reactive routing solution
>      based on AODVv2
> 
> NEW: Exploring feasibility of Standards Track reactive routing solutions,
>      possibly based on AODVv2
> 

Yes, that's better. Let's not constrain ourselves unnecessarily here.
Perhaps the paragraph on reactive routing protocols in the main body of the
charter text needs to be changed accordingly. Applied.
 
> 
> OLD: Progressing DAT-metric specification
> 
> NEW: Progressing DAT metric specification

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: Babel extensions
> 
> NEW: Babel extensions and maintenance

Fixed. (Should the order be: "maintenance and extensions" ?)

> 
> 
> OLD: OLSRv2 extensions
> 
> NEW: OLSRv2 extensions and maintenance

Fixed.

> 
> 
> OLD: DLEP extensions, DLEP corrections & clarifications document
> 
> NEW: DLEP extensions and maintenance

Yes, "maintenance" is more general and would cover a C & C document. (See
meeting materials from MANET session at IETF 110 for a discussion on the
need for such a document)  

Thanks again,
Ronald