Subject: [manet] Minutes from IETF61 MANET WG Meeting

From: Ian Chakeres <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 06:55:02 -0500

Presentations will be published to 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/directory.html shortly.

Ian Chakeres

-----------------------------------------------------------

MANET Minutes 11/10/04
Note Taker: Krishna Ramachandran

MANET draft agenda: See slides
         Joe Macker (JM)

* Charter Revision update: See slides
     Speaker:
         Joe Macker
     Comments:
         Samita Chakrabarti - Does it make sense to define the
         application target in the charter?

         Joe Macker - The goal is to design a light-weight but not
         necessarily an optimal routing solution. Constraints such as
         power saving need to be considered design. Mechanisms will be
         built in to support various policies such as energy saving,
         etc. Will post charter text on ML.

* DyMO: See slides
     Speaker:
         Ian Chakeres (IC)
     Comments:
         Charlie Perkins (CP) - I Like path accumulation. We have to 
think
         about how to capture path info in smaller MTUs.

         Justin Dean - Aggregate path accumulation information may be
         able to enable no reverse routes on RREQ processing.  Will
         post more information to the list.

         IC - I like path accumulation. The question is
         whether it should be required or not.

* Manet Proactive Routing Protocol (see slides)
    Speaker:
         Thomas Clausen (TC)
    Comments:
         JM - Doing full-state flooding might be sensible for
         some n/w configurations.

         TC - Yes. I am not precluding it from the spec, but I
         mentioned optimized partial topology dissemination because of
         all the work and the community consensus on this thus far.

         CP - It is important that some nodes that implement
         only the base spec don't bog down the remaining nodes that
         support an extension that achieves some optimization. Don't
         ignore important optimizations because they are extensions.

         JM - Document the design rationale when writing the spec.

         TC - Is there a process for documenting the design rationale?

         Brian Adamson - Specify 3 things in the doc: core baseline
         spec, extensions to typically include in an implementation,
         and finally some extensions that could be implemented in the
         future.

         JM - The process of a design rationale should be open
         to the WG.

         Alex Zinin (AZ) - Bring the design choices to the
         ML. Maybe write an information document on the design choices.

         TC - Do we have to include all MAYs in the standard track
         document?

         AZ - Typically MAYs are included for interoperability
         purposes. But there are no hard and fast rules.

         Phillip Chimento - How about features that need to be used but
         are not present because the base spec doesn't support?

         JM - Prioritize the known features to be deployed.

         IC - Solutions for the interaction of unknown options are a
         common problem.  If you know a solution please post it to the
         list. Otherwise we will do our best.

         CP - Base protocol should not require to be designed for the
         majority of the cases. Things like expanding ring search, etc
         are known to be help optimize network operation. Should they
         be included?

         JM - Base spec should satisfy many cases but cannot
         necessarily say that they satisfy the majority of cases.

         CP - We plan to get the base doc out first. Then soon after,
         publish another doc with extensions, and then do this
         iteratively.

         Pedro - Internet gatewaying results. (Please query for more
         information.)

         JM - There are definitely some trade offs and different
         approaches for proactive vs reactive.  More information would
         be helpful.

         AZ - Focus on core functionality. Consider the implementation
         requirement before putting a feature into the core spec. If
         some feature is not going to be implemented, don't put it into
         the spec.

         Rob Frye - Agreement with whats already been said about the
         core-extension design rationale.

* Simplified Multicast Forwarding for MANET (see slides)
    Speaker:
           Joe Macker

    Comments:
         Tom Henderson - Will there be a specific MANET multicast
         address for delivery of packet to all manet nodes?

         JM - CP will address this. There might be some
         IANA assigned IPs.

         Tom Anderson - Will multicast scoping be required?

         JM - There are other ways to do scoping. So not necessarily in
         the base spec.

         Phil Chimento - Is the phy layer assumed to be 802.11?  Does
         it matter?

         JM - It matters but we chose 802.11 mac for availability of 
hardware.

         Herbert Dens - Broadcast is done at the lower rate. This could
         eliminate higher throughput routes that the connected
         dominating set doesn't consider because it is formed using
         broadcast.

         JM - This is a problem in MANET.

         Unknown - Their implementation experience with MAODV might be
         relevant.

         JM - Post the publication to the ML.

         Justin Dean - Implementation specific issue about IP to Mac
         address mapping.

         Li Li - Is the forwarding mechanism per packet or precomputed?

         JM - Precomputed.

* Simplified Manet Multicast Routing Protocol (SMURF) (Slides)
    Speaker:
          Charlie Perkins

    Comments:
          Tom Henderson - Can we do things like cross-layer optimization
          in the multicast forwarding algorithm?

          CP - Might be ambitious to include initially but definitely
          worthwhile considering.

          JM - Is there consensus that multicast work is useful? Does
          anyone have any negative feedback about this charter item?

          Luke Klein-Berndt - Yes. It will be very useful for work we
          are doing at NIST.

          Unknown - Yes. Even for sensors.

          Li Li - Very useful for our work.

* First OLSR Interop Report (Slides)
    Speaker:
          Thomas Clausen
	
Announcements:

          Unknown - Immediately following MANET is a BOF on IPv6 over
          IEEE 802.15.4.

          CP - Pulsing power conserving solution: Consider such
          solutions as part of the design process. Will post reference
          to the list.

* MANET AutoConf (see slides)
    Speaker:
          Emmanuel Baccelli
    Comments:
          JM - Too many solutions in the basket. Need to explore
          more. Possibly also explore collaboration with other
          groups. Not necessarily a routing area issue.

          AZ - Start discussion on ML. Request for a BOF after
          some consensus is reached.

          Paal Engelstad - If autoconf is going to be a BOF, include
          service discovery also.

          JM - Time is up, please thrash it out on the ML.

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