Re: [manet] WG Mtg Summary -- Comment on Consensus

["Pete Sholander" <[e-mail]>]

Scott,

Three comments, all prefaced with IMHO of course.  Also a question on
schedule.

Comment 1: I agree that moving into an engineering mode is a good
thing.  Getting Experimental RFCs pubished by the IETF will motivate
additional open-air demos that will provide realistic data-sets for both
the IRTF and IETF.


Comment 2: The decision to sidetrack all types of "hybrid routing" off
into the IRTF seems **quite** unwise.  Several of my customers view
hybrid-routing as providing "application scalability" rather than
scalability in network size.  Hybrid techniques sidestep the debates
about reactive-routing having too much initial latency for real-time
traffic versus proactive routing problem's with LPD and energy
efficiency.  This seems to be *very* important to them in the short term
wherein they're trying to get additional open-air demos (with realistic
terrain, military personnel, ...) funded.

With that said, an IETF goal for the March or July meeting might be to
decide whether to:
       a) still consider protocols (e.g. ZRP or various cluster-based
schemes) that allow *every* node to exhibit hybrid behavior.
or
       b) or  down-scope to allowing a few "gateway" nodes to exchange
topology information between the proactive and reactive portions of one
MANET.  

draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-02.txt might form a basis for item (b). 
Wrt to Item (a), SRC and Cornell still plan to update the "ZRP drafts"
for the March meeting.  However, the focus will be on how IETF standard
reactive/proactive protocol (e.g., AODV/DSR and TBRPF/OLSR) components
can exchange topology information at a given node.  We won't be updating
the old IARP/IERP drafts. 

Comment 3: The proposal for the IRTF to meet at separate times/places
from the IETF is unfair to small businesses since it ups the numbers of
meetings from three to six.  For those who mainly do US gov't funded
work, it also probably ups the foreign travel requirements from one to
at least two (?)  Finally, the conferences you mentioned at the Atlanta
meeting (INFOCOM, ...) might not the ones that US DoD contractors
typically attend (e.g., MILCOM).   So, if the ADs split the MANET work
then the IRTF MANET RG needs to meet concurrently with the IETF
meetings.


Question1: The schedule outlined in Atlanta was: a) mailing list
discussion in December and January; b) an updated recharting proposal
for the San Francisco meeting in March; and c) a WG vote on recharting
at the Vienna meeting in July.  Is this correct?  If not then what's the
actual schedule?  Also, who's the final-decision authority?  (The ADs?)

--Pete Sholander
Scientific Research Corporation		
Atlanta, GA		

E: [e-mail]
V: 770-989-9551

>>> Scott Corson <[e-mail]> 12/02/02 09:54AM >>>
Folks,

This is a heads up for those not present in Atlanta and a request for
comment.

The WG met and principally discussed developments underway as a
consequence
of rechartering activities.  A decision has been made by the ADs and
WG
chairs to convert MANET from the psuedo-research mode of its origin
into a
pure engineering group, with more mature technical work proceeding
through
group consensus and scoped problem statements. The proposed approach
for
rechartering and updated milestones was presented at the meeting and
there
was a clear consensus of agreement that this is a good way forward. 
In
parallel with MANET rechartering, an IRTF MANET RG was created as a
subgroup
of the IRTF Routing RG.  The research theme of this RG is
"scalability". A
set of the existing IETF MANET proposals (FSR, LANMAR, TORA, ZRP)--all
originally targeted at scalability--have been selected for relocation
to
this RG.  The remaining IETF MANET I-Ds (AODV, DSR, OLSR,TBRPF) are
roughly
completed and are to be submitted for Experimental RFC status to
encourage
additional third party experimentation with concepts and
implementations.
Lessons learned from the past years' development of these core
protocols
will form the basis for the design of the new consensus-based protocol
work.
The meeting concluded with four presentations giving the current status
of
each of the core MANET I-Ds.

I am requesting any additional input from the list
(agreement/disagreement?)

regarding this WG direction.

-Scott
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail] 
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet