Subject: [manet] Defining subnet models used by our protocols

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 10:12:55 +0200

Hi All

I want to discuss this subnet definition issue that was raised in the
82 meeting, could we discuss about it please. Will we need to put it
in a draft or include it in our active draft working in progress,
please advise,

Abdussalam Baryun,
University of Glamorgan, UK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In WG 82 meeting it was mentioned (Bob Cole and Teco discussions):
BC> that subnet-models are not defined But in DLEP it looks at two
subnet-models (different models; e.g. radio subnet-models,
sat-subnet-models). We are defining IP over a subnet, but the subnet
is not defined. Then we don’t know how to define control protocols,
data-packet-formats, and managements-models without having a subnet
model in mind.
TB> In sat-comms the up-link and down-link can be very different. So
for different nodes on same carrier can be different data rates, SNR,
etc. so it is important that DLEP include the link metrics, even if it
is a full connected subnet.
BC> the subnet depends on the link of the subnet-underlying model,
The semantics of link up and down are determined by the underlying.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

********************************************************************
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.
********************************************************************

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 23:21:21 -0700

Hello folks,

I would be opposed to requiring the subnet model as a mandatory
component of any current [manet] working group charter item.

We have had at least ten years of experience showing that requiring
subnets can derail practically any wireless network discussion within
the sphere of applicability of manet protocols.  The reasons are many
and varied -- and, I must admit, really very interesting.

It was the death of another working group which really should have
been allowed to go forward except for disagreements about certain
subnet-related constructs.  Let's not consign ourselves to the same
fate.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 6/2/2012 1:12 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:24:18 +0200

Hi Charlie, and All

The discussion started in meeting 82 and there was no oppose of
starting it. Please note that I just notice it from the minutes so I
wanted to know opinions/views so we go forward not like closed
discussion WG.

IMO agree that it should not be a mandatory of any/all current manet
protocol, but I think IF we draft a general purpose
draft-issue/protocol, then subnet-model MUST be mandatory component
(i.e. defining the subnet-model). Only specific purpose or determined
purposes or drafts that specify its network technology use-case MAY
not include a subnet-model definition. For example, DLEP draft
includes two subnet-models which it is using and I think that is start
forward. However, the discussion on this issue is very important,
which we may change direct our considerations to the best solution.

So we don't have same fate of WG-death, is not to ignore network
requirements' definitions, but to make them understood and managed.
Maybe another way to solve the issue is to specify the MANET WG
purpose attached to defined subnet-models applicable to the WG in the
MANET WG charter, because from Cole and Teco discussion, there are
many subnet-models having different conditions that is not considered
by some general purpose works.

Abdussalam Baryun,
University of Glamorgan, UK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 06:19:05 -0700

+1

---

From: Don Sturek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 07:12:27 -0700

+1

On 6/2/12 11:21 PM, "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> is not defined. Then we don¹t know how to define control protocols,

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:46:49 -0400

+2

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:55:43 +0200

+3

-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-961,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:40:13 +0200

Hi All,

After many aposes, maybe we can draft a work of defining the
subnet-model for MANET, without in any draft, maybe this way it will
be better for all, then we discuss the new draft issue only without
mixing with other concepts of protocols.

If you give me a go ahead I will do that,

Regards
Abdussalam

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 10:03:56 +0200

=====================Possible Duplication ===================
Hi All

I would like to know your opinion about why we don't define subnets for MANET?

> On 6/2/12 11:21 PM, "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Could we discuss why we don't define subnets models? I don't
understand adding (+1). I hope the chair does not ask me to close this
thread too :)

The ad hoc autoconfig was proposed in 2005 and proposed-ended in 2011
so living for about 6 years only. What was the reason for the proposed
close of it? please read the DA Jari's reasons below.

IMO it because it had low/no useful discussions and only produced one
RFC which is RFC5889, why only one? what happend within 6 years?  IMO
any WG should have more discussions, discussions are mandatory
activity for WG. Not discussing issues is like ignoring the value
input to group progress. Healthy discussions are more important than
producing more documents produced, because discussions are really the
source of correct documents (don't mean it has to be perfect, but
should not be misleading). WGs should be compared in terms of the
amount of discussions not in amount of documents forwarded/submitted.

According to Chakeres and Maker (2006) [1] quoated below:

[The autoconf WG is chartered to initially develop
two documents. The first document is a document
defining the MANET architecture and how MANET
relates to IP networks and the Internet. The second
document is to define the terminology, problem statement
and goals for autoconf. These autoconf documents
will be discussed on the autoconf mailing list.]

That WG did not produce the definition of MANET architecture. Which I
think is related to the subnet-model definition importance for MANET.
So i understand the authors see the importance of defining something
for MANET in 2006. Now, Do we have a network architecture definition
of MANET in one RFC?

>>subnet-related constructs.  Let's not consign ourselves to the same

In future the death of the WG will be because they don't discuss
things on the list, or don't have what to discuss, please read the
reasons mentioned by Jari Arkko below. IMO for the future, some day
any WGs possibly will close and other days new WGs comes.

>>Charlie P.

References:
[1] Chakers, I., and Maker, J., 'Mobile Ad Hoc Networking and the
IETF', Mobile Computing and communication review, volume 1, Number 2,
2006.

Best regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: "autoconf at ietf.org" <autoconf at ietf.org>
Subject: [Autoconf] closing the working group?
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:48:47 +0200

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have looked at the discussions on the list (or lack thereof). I also
cannot see too many internet drafts on the topics belonging to the
group's charter. I am very happy with the RFC that has been produced
by the working group, but we also seem to have some actual protocol
work happening elsewhere (e.g., in the context of the ROLL WG).

I discussed this matter with the chairs and my co-AD, and we are
wondering if it would be time to close the working group. I do know
that there is at least one implementation team that is still in the
process of describing their DHCP-based solution, maybe there are
similar efforts on the distributed solution space. My proposal is that
we close the working group and I'be VERY happy to AD sponsor all such
solutions to Experimental RFCs as soon as we have those proposals in
some reasonable shape.
Thoughts?

Jari
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To: IETF-Announce at ietf.org
Subject: WG Review: Ad Hoc Network configuration (autoconf)
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary at ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:28:49 -0400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new IETF working group has been proposed in the Internet Area. The
IESG has not
made any determination as yet. The following draft charter was
submitted, and is
provided for informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG
mailing list (iesg at ietf.org) by August 3rd.

+++++++++++++

Ad Hoc Network configuration (autoconf)
========================================

Current Status: Proposed Working Group

Chairs:
TBD

Internet Area Director(s):
Mark Townsley <townsley at cisco.com>
Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>

Internet Area Advisor:
Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: manetautoconf at ml.free.fr
To Subscribe: manetautoconf-request at ml.free.fr

Description of the WG:

In order to communicate among themselves, ad hoc nodes (refer to RFC
2501) may need to configure their network interface(s) with local
addresses that are valid within an ad hoc network. Ad hoc nodes may
also need to configure globally routable addresses, in order to
communicate with devices on the Internet.

Ad hoc networks present several new challenges. Unlike in traditional
IP networks, each ad hoc node, besides being a traffic end-point,
should be capable of forwarding traffic destined for other hosts.
Additionally, nodes constituting an ad-hoc network do not share access
to a single multicast-capable link for signaling. Many protocol
specifications used in traditional IP networks e.g. RFCs 2462, 2463
etc. do, however, assume that subnet-local signals (e.g. link-local
multicast signal) are received by each of the hosts on the particular
subnet without being forwarded by the routers defining the subnet
boundary.

The main purpose of the AUTOCONF WG is to standardize mechanisms to be
used by ad hoc nodes for configuring unique local and/or globally
routable IPv6 addresses. The ad hoc nodes under consideration are
expected to support multi-hop communication by running a MANET routing
protocol, e.g. those developed by the IETF MANET WG. However, this may
or may not mean that an AUTOCONF mechanism will be dependent on any
specific MANET routing protocol. With this in mind, the goals of
AUTOCONF WG are to:

- Produce a "terminology and problem statement" document, defining the
problem statement and goals for AUTOCONF.

- Develop an IPv6 stateless autoconfiguration mechanism to be used by
ad hoc nodes for configuring unique local addresses as well as, in
cases where Internet connectivity exists, globally routable unique
addresses.

- Develop a stateful address autoconfiguration mechanism to be used by
ad hoc nodes for configuring globally routable unique addresses, if an
address providing entity such as DHCPv6 server is available.

- Develop a mechanism to promote configured address uniqueness in the
situation where different ad hoc networks merge.

Issues and requirements related to prefix and/or address providing
entities, such as an Internet gateway, will be addressed within the
group to the extent that they are directly related to the AUTOCONF
mechanisms. Security concerns related to AUTOCONF mechanisms will also
be discussed within the group.

The working group will reuse existing specifications whenever
reasonable and possible.

Goals and Milestones:

Oct 05 : Submit "terminology and problem statement" document for WG
review
Oct 05: Submit initial I-D(s) of candidate proposed AUTOCONF mechanisms
and design frameworks
Feb 06: Submit "terminology and problem statement" document to IESG for
publication as an informational RFC
Apr 06: Submit initial I-D of "stateless autoconfiguration mechanism"
for WG review
Apr 06: Submit initial I-D of "stateful autoconfiguration mechanism"
for WG review
Apr 06: Submit initial -ID of "configured address uniqueness
maintenance" for WG review
Aug 06: Revise WG documents and review
Dec 06 Revise documents based upon implementation experience
Apr 07: Submit "stateless autoconfiguration mechanism" specification
and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed
Standard
Apr 07: Submit "stateful autoconfiguration mechanism" specification and
supporting documentation to IESG for publications as Proposed Standard
Apr 07: Submit "configured address uniqueness maintenance"
specification and supporting documentation to IESG for publications as
Proposed Standard
Oct 07: Close or recharter the WG

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

=====================================================

---

From: Don Sturek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:26:19 -0700

I am opposed to tying any subnet model to work within MANET.

That said, individual drafts can be created by anyone.....

Don

---

From: Don Sturek <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:35:11 -0700

Hi Abdullalam,

I think basing a routing protocol (like those in MANET and also ROLL) on
some standard definition of subnets is:
1)  not needed in my experience with virtually every deployment scenario I
have seen
2)  conflates the network topology with the pratical issue of providing
peer to peer route discovery and establishment

Don

On 6/4/12 12:17 AM, "Abdussalam Baryun" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Hi Don, and All,
>Cc: manetautoconf at ml.free.fr
>List-help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help>
>List-id: ietf-announce.ietf.org
>List-post: <mailto:[email-masked]>
>List-subscribe:
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>,
><mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe>
>List-unsubscribe:
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>,
><mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe>
>Reply-to: iesg at ietf.org
>Sender: ietf-announce-bounces at ietf.org
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:17:50 +0200

Hi Don, and All,

References:

Best regards

Abdussalam Baryun

Jari

+++++++++++++

Chairs:
TBD

Internet Area Advisor:

Mailing Lists:

Description of the WG:

Goals and Milestones:

---

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 14:51:23 -0400

> understand adding (+1). I hope the chair does not ask me to close this

This co-chair won't ask for the thread to close unless/until it becomes non-productive…

> close of it? please read the DA Jari's reasons below.

For that, I would suggest looking at the group's email archive : http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html

> for MANET in 2006. Now, Do we have a network architecture definition

Based on my experiences implementing mobile and ad-hoc networks for my customers, the main subnet model in use is - "There is NO subnet model in use". Or rather, "N" subnet models used, depending on the aspects of the specific deployment, and hence, IMO, the issues in the (now defunct) working group you mention. The subnet model for any given research project doesn't match the subnet model necessary for first-responders (police and fire brigades), which doesn't match the subnet model for broader disaster response deployments (e.g. Hurricane Katrina), which doesn't match the subnet model for a military deployment, which *most definitely* doesn't match the subnet model for a *multi-country* (military coalition) deployment.  It's chaos. Or, possibly, ad-hoc… ;-)  I guess it depends on the way you look at it. 

As someone I know and respect within the IETF says, "In these MANET networks, you basically wind up throwing host routes around pretty quickly." 

Oh, and since you mentioned that you don't understand adding "+1" to an email - it means that the person *completely agrees* with the earlier poster. And I completely agree with Charlie - we shouldn't consign ourselves to the same fate as "The Working Group whose name shall not be mentioned:…

Stan

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:20:08 -0400

Stan,

> For that, I would suggest looking at the group's email archive : http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html

A good suggestion. Lots of history here.

> Based on my experiences implementing mobile and ad-hoc networks for my customers, the main subnet model in use is - "There is NO subnet model in use". Or rather, "N" subnet models used, depending o…

+1, supporting Stan, Charlie, Dan, and others; the manet subnet model is there are no subnets.

>> University of Glamorgan, UK

----
[email-masked]
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. This email may contain information that is protected by NDA. Any unauthorized review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:18:22 +0200

Hi Don,

I agree to oppose as well, it was not my idea in the first place,
Robert Cole presented the interest-input to the WG 82 meeting and I
found that not much discussed it or covered the issue so far, I needed
to see the response more clear from the WG, however, I don't intend to
want to leave it open without quick close and understanding.

In the same time, I really see in the draft authored by Emmanual and
Perkins, regarding models, which it gives examples about *often*
physical-subnets of MANET, this input draft plus DLEP, and the input
of Mr.Cole and others input in the meeting, made me think to discuss
about the MANET definitions and assumptions but NOT the
specifications. Please note that we have two drafts that define
possible MANET subnets or *often* subnets, [DLEP] and
[draft-baccelli-manet-multihop-communication-01].

Therefore, the question and confusion of Mr.Cole may happen to any one
or many memebr in the future while reading our standards and
specifications, I RECOMMEND to find a way to solve this issue, or that
I draft one informative track document that contains *often* and
Sat-com possible MANET subnets.

Best regards
Abdussalam Baryun
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:27:08 +0200

> want to leave it open without quick close and understanding.

Either you oppose it or not... saying you oppose it but pushing for 
doing it anyways is self-contradicting.

The fate of the Autoconf group shows that trying to nail down the 
subnet-definition of Manet is both very time-consuming, frustrating and 
nearly pointless.

Manets have proven to work with nearly any kind of subnet setting, 
because many of them just work with host-routes.

Henning Rogge

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:50:01 +0200

Hi Stan and Bo,

+1

Furthermore, I was thinking of two level models one logical level and
the other physical (as Mrs.Sue has mention in the 82 meeting), but
both are not reality model (i.e. wireless+mobility= unstable systems),
and the physical model is closer to the real one. The logical model is
the specification implementation and knowledge. Also was thinking not
to mix between specifications and use-case informations.

The issue I think is that most of our protocols are general purpose
MANET protocols which after Mr.Perkins comments I now wanted them to
stay and think of a way to avoid memebrs confusion, because you cannot
ignore such issue and still people waste time not benefiting from old
efforts or discussions. Therefore, I RECOMMENT the draft authored by
Emmanuel about MANET-models, to mention that it specifies the most
possible MANET models (not all models) as logical-models, because new
protocols may have new logical models.

Overall, I am happy with our outcome so far of the discussion. Thank
you Stan to tell me about things that help me understand :)

Abdussalam Baryun
University of glamorgan
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 6/4/12, Bo Berry <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> For that, I would suggest looking at the group's email archive :
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf/current/maillist.html
>
>> Based on my experiences implementing mobile and ad-hoc networks for my
>> customers, the main subnet model in use is - "There is NO subnet model in
>> use". Or rather, "N" subnet models used, depending on the aspects of the
>> specific deployment, and hence, IMO, the issues in the (now defunct)
>> working group you mention. The subnet model for any given research project
>> doesn't match the subnet model necessary for first-responders (police and
>> fire brigades), which doesn't match the subnet model for broader disaster
>> response deployments (e.g. Hurricane Katrina), which doesn't match the
>> subnet model for a military deployment, which *most definitely* doesn't
>> match the subnet model for a *multi-country* (military coalition)
>> deployment.  It's chaos. Or, possibly, ad-hoc… ;-)  I guess it depends on
>> the way you look at it.
>
>> As someone I know and respect within the IETF says, "In these MANET
>> networks, you basically wind up throwing host routes around pretty
>> quickly."
>>
>> Oh, and since you mentioned that you don't understand adding "+1" to an
>> email - it means that the person *completely agrees* with the earlier
>> poster. And I completely agree with Charlie - we shouldn't consign
>> ourselves to the same fate as "The Working Group whose name shall not be
>> mentioned:…
>>
>> Stan
>>
>>
>>>
> This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
> of the intended recipient. This email may contain information that is
> protected by NDA. Any unauthorized review, use, distribution or disclosure
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
> authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply
> email and delete all copies of this message.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:20:01 -0400

+1

Russ

-- 
<><
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:29:36 -0400

> As someone I know and respect within the IETF says, "In these MANET networks, you basically wind up throwing host routes around pretty quickly." 

I would argue that most ad-hoc networks are precisely host routing, or
"all networks are of length x," and with no overlapping prefixes through
aggregation. If, in the future, the problem of routing with this
constraint in hand is "solved," then we can start talking about subnets
and overlapping prefixes, and whether or not we actually have a solid
business case for such a thing.

Steer clear until we have the experience and requirements to back the
work up, IMHO.

Russ

-- 
<><
[email-masked]
[email-masked]

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 18:23:29 -0700

+1

-- 
Thomas Heide Clausen
http://www.thomasclausen.org/

"Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to
 discuss it."
   -- Mitchell's Law of Committees

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 08:42:53 +0000

+1

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins
Sent: 03 June 2012 07:21
To: Abdussalam Baryun
Cc: manet; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Defining subnet models used by our protocols

----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

Hello folks,

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 6/2/2012 1:12 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> is not defined. Then we don't know how to define control protocols,

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 12:59:50 +0200

++++++++++++++++++  Possible Duplication Information  +++++++++++++++

Hi Folks,

It may be repeated input but needed for my work on the draft of :
MANET possible L2 technology. This subject input was reaction to
Mr.Cole input in 82-meeting of WG, and for the apearance of DLEP in
the WG. please read below:

UH>I think it would be wrong to define such a multi-link subnet (for the
>reasons the IAB described in in RFC4903, and that we tried to convey
>at length in AUTOCONF).

I just now finished reading RFC4903 and thank you that you brought it
to my attention ( I will include in my draft), however, I see that it
considers issue of L3 link models not L2 link models. There are big
difference between L3 and L2.

RFC4903>There can be any number of layer 2
devices (bridges, switches, access points, etc.) in the middle
of the link.

AB> meaning the total link that includes the path between two node-interfaces.

RFC4903>Links that appear as NBMA links at layer 3 are problematic. Instead,
if a link is an NBMA link at layer 2, then protocol designers should
define some mechanism such that it appears as either the multi-access
link model or point-to-point link model at layer 3.

AB> please read above----> designers SHOULD define some mechanism such
that it appears as either the multi-access.......

AB> I just wanted to write a draft to define L2 network technology and
follow the RFC4903, so the RFC4903 is not against but with my
approach. Please note that I don't want to define the protocol to be
dependent on the L2 technology, but I want the DESIGNERS to KNOW what
they are looking as Mr.Clausen mentioned in the WG 77 meeting, that we
define assumptions/conditions before looking at our protocols.

I appreciate that you educated me regarding the RFC4903 it is very
important to read I admit that I missed. Thanks,

Best Regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK
=========================================================