Re: [manet] Recharter Discussion

[Justin Dean <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> The key points as I see it are:
>
> - We shouldn’t wait for telecon, and can’t rely on telecon and cut out
> list.
>
> I agree.  We shouldn't wait for the telecon.  I'll continue to engage
everyone on this list about what people are willing to work on.


> - We are very short of contributors. Many who have contributed have
> dropped away. And those who have been main creators of WG RFCs (looking at
> statistics, Clausen and Dearlove in particular, but also others - but not a
> lot of others, especially after the first batch of Experimental RFCs) may
> or may not be contributing.
>
> We are short contributors and we may be able to get more by focusing the
group on specific issues and possibly creating new focused groups to invite
a larger/wider IETF involvement.  Security being the one coming to mind.
Your mention on the list about security stuff that you are interested in
hasn't brought a lot of discussion on this list but it very well may bring
a lot of interest from the larger ietf community.


> - But even more importantly we need real people (preferably companies with
> products) using our protocols with real problems. DLEP I think has some
> real adaptors, though I think most are waiting for an RFC. OLSRv2 is short
> on companies advertising they are using it - I wish some would (I’m told
> they exist, but couldn’t name any). AODVv2 (which may or may not be in
> scope) appears not to have even up to date experimental code (please
> correct if wrong).
>
> - Hence although we may have some great ideas, it’s not yet clear people
> want them and we can deliver - DLEP maintenance being I think closest to
> contradicting that, at least publicly.
>
Well I KNOW that here at NRL we have the real people and prototype products
relating to the multicast issue that it can happen. The key issue is making
sure there are enough people willing to contribute and engineer a solution
to an issue that needs solving.

>
>
There is the horrible warning of Autoconf that went wrong in several ways,
> but at the end, had no one who would do the work (which is a lot of work,
> taking longer than you expect) to create a draft and take it all the way.
> And that means a small team of actual authors, plus wider input.
>

>
> Incidentally the autoconf problem is still real, but was too narrow. That
> was considering address autoconfiguration (though the WG never actually got
> there). As I see it, there’s an inseparable (in terms of thinking about it,
> drafts may of course separate out details) issue that is of address
> assignment, identity assignment/management, cryptographic key management,
> and other forms of management (network management). And several chicken and
> egg problems that arise in them, especially in ad hoc networks.
>
> I think the issue with autoconf is that it was attempting to solve to
broad a problem.  There were demonstratable solutions to very specific
problems (e.g. multihop DHCP) but then there were more exotic solutions to
more complex problems like DAD in disconnected partitioning/merging
networks. If we can focus on a specific well defined problem space I think
we'll be fine.

>
>
> *-- *
>
>
>
>
> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied
> Intelligence Laboratories *
> *__________________________________________________________________________
> *
> *T*:  [phone]  |  *E: *[e-mail]
>
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great
> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
> www.baesystems.com/ai
>
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited
> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451
>
> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP
>
>
>
> *From:* manet [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Heide
> Clausen
> *Sent:* 26 April 2016 22:01
> *To:* Justin Dean
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [manet] Recharter Discussion
>
>
>
>
>
> **** WARNING ****
>
> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an
> external partner or the internet.*
>
> * Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any
> attachments or reply. For information regarding **Red Flags** that you
> can look out for in emails you receive, click here
> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.*
> * If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process
> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.*
>
> **** **WARNING ******
> EXTERNAL EMAIL -- This message originates from outside our organization.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26 avr. 2016, at 22:21, Justin Dean <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thomas I understand your concerns but we have mostly gone over this before
> in previous meetings.
>
>
>
> The IETF conducts is business on mailing lists.
>
>
>
> My recollection is that the strawman charter was presented once in a WG
> meeting, then the chairs did not animate any charter discussion for several
> IETFs, on the list (nor was the charter discussed in subsequent meetings) -
> until this present "urgency" was declared (by the chairs) to the WG.
>
>
>
> The AD will not allow us to meet at the next IETF meeting if we do not
> have a new charter and new work items.
>
>
>
> That does not negate my point, however, which was that:
>
>
>
> it should be established on the list that there are *meaningful things to
> do*, and there's a *meaningful critical mass of people to be doing those
> things*, before a (virtual) interim is called. Brainstorming on a
> teleconference is rarely a constructive way to spend time
>
>
>
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> To your point it's imparative that the discussion continues on list about
> the charter.  With that in mind here is a suggested edit of the previously
> floated charter, with comments in () with JWD tags.
>
>
> The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application within both static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due to node motion or other factors.
>
>
>
> Approaches are intended to be relatively lightweight in nature, suitable for multiple hardware and wireless environments, and address scenarios where MANETs are deployed at the edges of an IP infrastructure. Hybrid mesh infrastructures (e.g., a mixture of fixed and mobile routers) should also be supported by MANET specifications and management features.
>
>
>
> The MANET WG is responsible for the maintenance of OLSRv2, AODVv2 (JWD TBD), DLEP and NHPD. Of particular interest: security enhancements, and encryption security extensions for RFC5444. (JWD we may want to break this out of the WG and make a new MANET Sec working group to grab the attention of those interested in security and get their participation.)
>
>
>
> The MANET WG will standardize a multicast MANET protocol framework based on previous work and lessons learned for scoped forwarding within MANET networks.  As part of this framework the WG will produce a well defined MANET multicast forwarding information base.
>
>
>
> The WG will produce an informational draft outlining challenges and best practices for deploying and managing MANET networks.
>
>
>
> The MANET WG will interact with the PIM working group on issues relating to the multicast work.  The WG will also pay attention to other IETF and IRTF work that is addressing topics related to MANET environments.
>
>
>
> In summary, the WG will develop the following drafts:
>
>
>
> MANET Management Document (Informational)
>
> MANET Maintenance
>
>  - RFC5444 Security extension (Standards) (JWD possibly move this to new working group)
>
> MANET Multicast
>
>  - Multicast FIB (Standards)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Thomas Clausen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I believe that an virtual interim is premature: a teleconference is,
> mechanically, less inclusive than are mailing list discussions (time-zones,
> other commitments, requirement of synchronicity of participation, etc.).
>
>
>
> Furthermore....
>
>
>
> Until such time that a strawman charter is proposed, *updated to reflect
> the reality of the group* as stipulated by the AD and by Mr. Dean, as
> well as additional charter items emerging on the list,  and *with
> relatively broad and deep support* for the included items by the working
> group, having an interim - virtual or otherwise - is not constructive.
>
>
>
> In other words, it should be established on the list that there are *meaningful
> things to do*, and there's a *meaningful critical mass of people to be
> doing those things*, before a (virtual) interim is called. Brainstorming
> on a teleconference is rarely a constructive way to spend time.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2016, at 17:50, Stan Ratliff <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hello WG,
>
>
>
> Do we need to hold an interim meeting (via WebEX) to discuss? I'd like to
> get opinions on the list about that. We'll need a couple of weeks to
> schedule, but we can do that.
>
>
>
> One other point inline:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Multicast is the obvious top item. Lots of possible approaches, time to
> discuss.
>
>
>
> Gateways for AODVv2 at Standard is obviously not possible since AODVv2 is
> going to be Experimental at most.
>
>
>
> Management we did of course have an NHDP/OLSRv2 draft killed by AD. Which
> since NHDP/OLSRv2 us all we have (SMF excepted) that was a bit tricky.
>
>
>
> I would have to make an IPR declaration to say some of what I might have
> to say about encryption. Not today.
>
>
>
> Understood. But please remember - there's only about a 5-week gap now
> before the charter needs to be complete in order for the WG to meet in
> Berlin.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Stan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Missing from the list is any work on OLSRv2 (or NHDP). MT-OLSRv2 is
> experimental. That would need implementation tests to advance to PS. Anyone
> interested in that (I’m not saying I can)?
>
>
>
> More broadly on OLSRv2 there are various things that could be done, but
> what is really needed is people with a real application. Any that exist
> were frightened away from this group.
>
>
>
> *-- *
>
>
>
>
> *Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer BAE Systems Applied
> Intelligence Laboratories *
> *__________________________________________________________________________
> *
> *T*:  [phone]  |  *E: *[e-mail]
>
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, Chelmsford Technology Park, Great
> Baddow, Chelmsford, Essex CM2 8HN.
> www.baesystems.com/ai
>
> BAE Systems Applied Intelligence Limited
> Registered in England & Wales No: 01337451
>
> Registered Office: Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7YP
>
>
>
> *From:* manet [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Justin Dean
> *Sent:* 22 April 2016 16:07
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [manet] Recharter Discussion
>
>
>
>
>
> **** WARNING ****
>
> *This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an
> external partner or the internet.*
>
> * Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any
> attachments or reply. For information regarding **Red Flags** that you
> can look out for in emails you receive, click here
> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Red%20Flags.pdf>.*
> * If you feel the email is suspicious, please follow this process
> <http://intranet.ent.baesystems.com/howwework/security/spotlights/Documents/Dealing%20With%20Suspicious%20Emails.pdf>.*
>
> **** **WARNING ******
> EXTERNAL EMAIL -- This message originates from outside our organization.
>
>
>
> I'll start things off by floating the draft re-charter which was presented
> in Prague.
>
> The purpose of the MANET working group is to standardize IP routing protocol functionality suitable for wireless routing application within both static and dynamic topologies with increased dynamics due to node motion or other factors.
>
>
>
> Approaches are intended to be relatively lightweight in nature, suitable for multiple hardware and wireless environments, and address scenarios where MANETs are deployed at the edges of an IP infrastructure. Hybrid mesh infrastructures (e.g., a mixture of fixed and mobile routers) should also be supported by MANET specifications and management features.
>
>
>
> The MANET WG is responsible for the maintenance of OLSRv2, AODVv2, DLEP and NHPD. Of particular interest: border behavior between MANET networks and fixed IP network infrastructures, enhance AODVv2 gateway functionality; security enhancements, encryption security extensions for RFC5444.
>
>
>
> The MANET WG will standardize a multicast MANET protocol framework based on previous work and lessons learned for scoped forwarding within MANET networks.  As part of this framework the WG will produce a well defined MANET multicast forwarding information base.
>
>
>
> The WG will produce an informational draft outlining challenges and best practices for deploying and managing MANET networks.
>
>
>
> The MANET WG will interact with the PIM working group on issues relating to the multicast work.  The WG will also pay attention to other IETF and IRTF work that is addressing topics related to MANET environments.
>
>
>
> In summary, the WG will develop the following drafts:
>
>
>
> MANET Management Document (Informational)
>
> MANET Maintenance
>
>  - RFC5444 Security extension (Standards)
>
>  - Enhanced AODVv2 gateway extension (Standards)
>
> MANET Multicast
>
>  - Multicast FIB (Standards)
>
>
>
>
>
> This will likely be considered too broad to pass.  We will likely need to cut some and focus the work.  For me personally I know I have the time and backing to work on the Multicast piece.
>
>
>
> Justin
>
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
> recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
> You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
> distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>
>