Subject: [manet] IMPORTANT: MANET WG Strategy

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:23:11 -0800

Folks-

 [AD hat on]

 For a long while the MANET WG has been struggling through a number of
 problems. After analyzing the situation, it appears that the main
 reason behind this is the fact that the WG was created and has been
 operating as a research type of group, producing multiple possible
 solutions for a very wide set of similar problems. At the time of
 creation, IETF was the only reasonable home for this sort of work,
 mainly because the IRTF was largely dysfunctional. However, the
 research nature of the WG did not work well in the IETF environment,
 where we would normally like members of the WGs to focus on a
 relatively narrow, well defined problem, and work closely together on
 the solution(s).

 This situation obviously needs to be resolved if we want the MANET WG
 to produce IETF standards track specification(s) for mobile ad hoc
 networks.

 After talking to the WG chairs and some people within the WG (I
 definitely couldn't have talked to all of you guys), I believe that
 the following plan should be executed to solve the problem.

 Goals:

  1. Convert the WG to operate in the engineering (IETF) mode
     and produce the IETF standard specification(s) for MANETs.
     This requires:
       o clear and focused problem statement
       o focused WG charter with clear milestones
       o WG members working closely together towards consensus

  2. For the work that will benefit from further research work,
     and would be affected by focusing the WG charter, if possible
     find a better home that will match the research nature of the
     work. Given that the IRTF has been brought back to real life and
     there's actually useful work happening within it, the IRTF would
     be the logical choice for this.

 Steps:

  1. A new Research Group (or a sub-group of the Routing RG) is created
     within the IRTF. The group will be the home for MANET research
     work. Since a longer, more research-oriented work is needed for
     extended salability mechanisms that LANMAR, FSR, ZRP, and TORA
     are attempting to provide, these protocols are relocated from the
     MANET WG to the IRTF, where they will benefit the research
     environment without the pressure of having to converge on a
     single protocol. As work in the IRTF matures, creation of IETF
     WGs maybe explored through the regular IETF BOF or WG
     rechartering procedures.

     /* The WG chairs are currently working with the IRTF chair
      * (I'm cc'ing Vern) on creating a forum for MANET research
      *  work.
      */

  2. The charter of the MANET WG is changed to complete the work
     on four protocols--DSR, AODV, OLSR, and TBRPF--and submit them
     for publication as Experimental to the IESG.

  3. When done with the Experimental documents, the WG transitions
     to the engineering mode with the first step of documenting the
     engineering problem statement describing the applicability
     aspects of the protocol to be designed, such as the type of ad
     hoc networks that need to be supported, number of nodes, level of
     mobility, etc. The scope of the problem is expected to be much
     narrower than the implicit problem statement that the current
     research activity is trying to cover. This step is required for
     the WG to continue its existence; the WG's potential will be
     reevaluated based on the produced problem statement and the
     charter will be updated accordingly.

  4. If consensus on the problem statement is reached, the WG (including
     the members of the current subgroups) will work together on the
     design of the IETF protocol(s) (either a single one with
     proactive and reactive modes, or one proactive, one reactive, for
     example; depending on what the WG decides is required) for ad hoc
     networks that will be progressed along the IETF standards tracks.
     Note that this protocol(s) will not be a recompilation of one of the
     four experimental protocols, but will be a true product of the
     engineering discussion within the WG, potentially incorporating
     features from all of them. Also note, that it will be an explicit
     non-goal for this IETF WG to choose and use the latest and
     greatest techniques that are currently being worked on or
     explored in the research community. Instead, the protocol(s) should
     be based on the mechanisms that the engineering community is most
     comfortable and has had sufficient experience with. Research work
     will continue happening in the IRTF.

 I had an opportunity to discuss this proposal with some of the WG
 members and the chairs and got considerable support. I am sending
 this message to understand the feeling of the wider WG community
 about the proposed strategy. I would also like us to discuss this in
 Atlanta before the decision is finalized. Scott, Joe, please allocate
 a time slot for this.

 Thank you.

Alex

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet