Subject: Re: [manet] Start of Defining the MANET L2 Technology

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:09:05 +0200

Hi,

I think the purpose of IETF is to standard the *Internet* protocols and
technologies. I agree with one message-input below, that we should
complete first MANET single-domain tasks then look into future tasks
(e.g. policy related).

However, IMO the Mobile-IP [RFC6275] and NEMO [RFC3963] considerations  (i.e.
requirements and services) are somehow related to
MANET-considerations, which may help in the future to direct MANET
future tasks to include thoes Internet issues. I will include small
section to discuss (including the below information) NEMO
issues/considerations in my draft of MANET technologies.

Regards

Abdussalam Baryun
University of Glamorgan, UK

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thread Subject: [manet] MANET Protocol Applicability
Date/Time: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 05:42:13 +0200

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13022.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one that is
different than standard IP?
Date/Time: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:52:11 -0400

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13020.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one that is
different than standard IP?
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:22:04 -0700

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13015.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one that is
different than standard IP?
Date/Time: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 10:21:42 -0600

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13014.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one that is
different than standard IP?
Date/Time:Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:08:34 +0000

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13013.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one that is
different than standard IP?
Date/Time: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:12:56 -0600

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg13009.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message Subject: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one that is
different than standard IP?
Date/Time: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 11:13:48 -0600

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12994.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thread Subject: [manet] Defining subnet models used by our protocols
Date/Time: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 10:12:55 +0200

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg12961.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:40:19 +0200

I'm puzzling on how RFC6275 and RFC3963 relate to MANET L2 Technology.
I hope it doesn't.

Teco
 
Op 26 jun. 2012, om 14:09 heeft Abdussalam Baryun het volgende geschreven:

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:18:25 +0200

It can be understood from reading the below pointed
discussion-messages and/or thread. However, I am sure that it is still
under arguments/non-final-decision at Internet community or IETF
memebrs,

Abdussalam
==============

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 21:19:18 +0200

Sorry, I don't have time to analyze MB's of archives. 
As said before, I suggest you post your ideas in a draft.
Hint: you might have more time to write than others have 
for reading. So keep it as short as possible.

Teco

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:24:17 +0100

I think that the messages I pointed to are only about 8
messages/paragraphs. IMO WGs need to read to function efficiently (the
reading time delay doesn't matter). We can take our time if we are bussy
now until maybe 28 days, because IMO the discussion list is a delay
tolerance communication tool. I will like to know your comments, because
IMO discussions (the source of I-Ds) are more important than I-Ds. Overall,
I agree that we/I should be short in I-D, but not in discussions. However,
I will follow your suggestion for my I-D, thanks,

AB
========================

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Teco Boot <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >>> Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one
> that
> >>> is
> >>> Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one
> that
> >>> is
> >>> Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one
> that
> >>> is
> >>> Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one
> that
> >>> is
> >>> Message Subject: Re: [manet] Subnet definition -- why do we need one
> that
> >>> is

---

From: Teco Boot <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:54:31 +0200

You may submit a -00 draft before cut-off date for Vancouver.
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2012.html#IETF84

Teco

Op 27 jun. 2012, om 10:24 heeft Abdussalam Baryun het volgende geschreven:

> I think that the messages I pointed to are only about 8 messages/paragraphs. IMO WGs need to read to function efficiently (the reading time delay doesn't matter). We can take our time if we are bussy now until maybe 28 days, because IMO the discussion list is a delay tolerance communication tool. I will like to know your comments, because IMO discussions (the source of I-Ds) are more important than I-Ds. Overall, I agree that we/I should be short in I-D, but not in discussions. However, I will follow your suggestion for my I-D, thanks,
>  
> AB
> ========================
>