Re: [manet] AODVv2 implementation

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juliusz,

AODVv2 is still individual work and not adopted by this IETF WG.

On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 2:31 PM Juliusz Chroboczek <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Donald,
>
> > I think that further exploration of AODVv2 and any AODV implementation
> problems
> > would be useful topics for the MNET WG and that we should consider
> adding that
> > to the Charter.
>
> I think that the people who know how to implement AODVv2 should give a talk
> on the subject (and perhaps write an informational I-D, if they are so
> inclined).


Until now no one made an input in this IETF WG that they will implement
AODVv2, if there is please refer me to such input. Also if there is then
they should make an informational or should co-author adopted reactive
routing standard for this WG.


> I, for one, would be interested in attending a technical talk
> on AODVv2 implementation, especially if some time is reserved for
> discussion.
>

I also interested but more interested in re-adopting AODVv2 and not
stoping it to be started again. Please note that this WG is not in a good
shape overall, please check the WG meeting and I will remind this WG
participants and this WG chairs that this IETF WG had got twice input from
our IETF AD responsible for MANET WG, which the AD informed the WG in two
different meeting that there is low discussion on the list and in meeting
and that this WG may conclude or that we need to recharter with willings of
adding work/efforts.

Therefore, because of low discussion/work and AD inputs, we need to adopt
work in WG which is important for this WG, especial our previous
adopeted_AODVv2 which was deleted and authors now are requesting
re-adoption. The input of the few participants which you were one of them
had reasonable concerns but if we see the full picture of this WG
re-charter situation and adding IETF AD input, I will say it is not needed
to stop adopting for this WG just because those concerns that don't have
details errors know about AODV or any experimental RFC for this WG.

>
> The chairs will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that giving
> a talk during an IETF meeting requires rechartering.
>

I think any one participating to this WG can/could_have make a talk in this
WG even if we had 10 talks per meeting, but as I mentioned our situation in
this WG is having huge concerns/input from this WG AD and we need more
adopted_work/willing_to_author and more discussions related to
drafts/efforts/RFCs. Due to last meetings we had  few talks in our meeting
so if there is some one willing to talk about implementation they just
have/had to send a request on the list which was not seen sor far.

IMHO, the request for rechartering (which had not consensus results for
more than 4 months) was also because we had before request some drafts
requested for adoption and had low response of interest for adopting (
which I was interested and I responded maybe alone), and including AODVv2
had low response.

Overall, I think it was not reasonable that few participants may objected
adoption of well known AODV just because no seen implementation in open
source, especially within this time our WG AD is having serious concerns
regarding this WG to close it down or re-acharter shortly. I hope the WG
chair say something (or make an input on this list) regarding those AD
input and what is the situation exactly now for this WG?

Best Regards,
AB