Subject: Minutes of 52nd IETF MANET WG meeting?

From: Kilian Weniger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:41:09 +0100 (CET)

Hi all,

Why are there no minutes and/or slides available of the last (52nd) IETF
MANET meeting?

  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/01dec/index.html

Kilian Weniger

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Kilian Weniger           phone: (+49)(0)721-608 6415
Institute of Telematics             fax:   (+49)(0)721-388097
Department of Computer Science      email: [email-masked]
University of Karlsruhe 	    homepage: http://www.tm.uka.de/~weniger/
D-76128 Karlsruhe

---

From: Scott Corson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 18:19:33 -0500

Folks,

Sorry for the lapse this time...we had this ready and never submitted it.

-Scott n Joe

****************************************************************************
***

Minutes of Dec 2001 MANET MTG

The IETF manet WG held a recent meeting on December 11, 2001 in Salt Lake
City, Utah, USA. The meeting began with a brief introduction by the WG
chairmen, Joe Macker and Scott Corson and the customary agenda bashing
session.

WG Scope Discussion

Scott Corson then led a discussion on WG scope and direction.  With the
recent change in Routing Area Directorship, the WG's scope and charter are
under review, and there is a desire on the part of the Routing AD and the WG
chairs to keep the group focused and working on near-term practical
problems.  It was reiterated by the co-chairs that work on multicast, QoS
and address auto-configuration in manets is currently out of scope.  Also,
it was strongly suggested that work specifically oriented towards larger
scale manets (TORA, ZRP-related drafts, LANMAR) be removed as WG work items
due to the apparent lack of WG interest, but this was agreed to be taken to
the list for discussion and consensus assessment.  

There was specific discussion on whether to still advance both AODV and DSR
as Experimental RFCs as was previously agreed, or to try to come to WG
consensus now on which of the two protocols should advance towards Proposed
Standard status.  The rough consensus of the WG seemed to favor continuing
with both drafts moving to Experimental status, due to minimal operational
experience and third party experimentation with the protocols.  The short
term goal would be to encourage further implementation and experimentation
and for a "WG process" to be developed by which future reactive protocol
decisions could be made.

The suggestion was also put forth by the chairs to include work on manet
"flooding" as a WG item; the thought being that flooding is a generic
feature useful in manets for a variety of algorithms such as multicast and
address auto-configuration mechanisms.  Also the group has some experience
with flooding mechanisms already as every unicast protocol makes use of a
flooding mechanism to some degree.

The conclusion of the discussion on WG scope was that focused work on
reactive and proactive unicast routing protocols for manet should continue,
and that flooding should be added as well.  The rationale was that these
pieces of work are relatively technically mature and that further
experimentation and closure on specifics is needed before moving on to more
complicated design areas.  Further discussion of future scope will be taken
to the list.

Protocol Discussions

A sequence of presentations then followed, not all of which are described
here, so please see the meeting minutes for more information [1].

Richard Ogier briefly outlined recent changes to TBRPF, and then presented
simulation results comparing the relative performances of TBRPF, OLSR and
AODV.  The discussion of these results was lively and the validity and
effectiveness of the models developed for OLSR experimentation was openly
questioned.  Joe Macker raised the issue that the results presented for OLSR
should not be taken as representative of the performance due to potential
design issues with the Linux code based on version 3 of the draft
specification.  This earlier protocol implementation source code was used to
develop the simulation results presented.  The WG chairs encouraged further
third party experimentation with newer simulation models under development
as a further independent comparison of protocol performance and issues.

Thomas Clausen followed with a summary of activity and progress regarding
the work of the proactive protocol design team. The proactive routing design
team activity was established within the WG to explore the potential for a
compromise core protocol for proactive routing.  A short term goal of this
team was to explore the possibility of a design merge of the best aspects of
approaches being proposed to further simplify and scope WG activity.  The
active membership has mostly consisted of work between TBRPF and OLSR
authors. While progress was made in identifying common algorithm components
and obtaining a shared understanding of the similarities and differences in
the two approaches, the design team membership failed to close some of the
gaps that existed between the designs of respective proposed algorithms.
The conclusion of the early exploratory design team effort is that a merged
protocol design was not likely without technical compromising existing
proposals.  Due to this outcome, respective proactive routing protocol
groups have decided to continue to progress work on their respective
individual protocols.

Along with reactive protocols, the manet WG feels that the development of
proactive protocols for manet is important for a number of mobile routing
application areas and scenarios. This work is also reaching maturity rather
quickly in terms of implementation and experimental experience.  Now that
the proactive routing design team has reached its initial conclusions, that
a single protocol consensus design is unlikely, a WG decision process and
timeline for progressing forward respective proposals needs to be
established.

References

[1] Proceedings of the Fifty-Second Internet Engineering Task Force, Current
Meeting Report for the manet WG, Salt Lake City, December 2001.