Subject: Fwd: Re: Standardization?

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 11:10:38 -0500

>Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:57:18 +0200
>From: John Wells <[email-masked]>
>To: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: Standardization?
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
>Sender: John Wells <[email-masked]>
>
>mardi, le 27 mar 2001 à 10h17 -0500, Joe Macker a écrit :
> > John:
> >
> > We are presently promoting progress for two "on-demand routing service"
> > protocols for Experimental RFC consideration (yes, this is not
> > standardization but we are not ready for that until we get more 
> operational
> > experience).  Both of these protocols have seen progress in 
> implementation,
> > design revisions, and testing within the WG.  We also have an organized
> > design team formulating an approach for a "proactive routing service",
> > which I feel is an important area for promoting standardization in 
> addition
> > to the on-demand routing class of approaches.
> >
> > Also, the chairs were asked by the AD not to update the charter right 
> away,
> > but to wait until we had some of the Experimental RFC actions completed
> > that are mentioned above. At that time, I think it would be a good idea.
>
>Joe,
>Thanks for clearing this up a bit.  I worked at Virginia Tech trying to get
>an ad-hoc testbed set up, and it only gave me nightmares.  This was six
>months ago, I must admit.  I haven't participated actively in the working
>group, but from the listserv and web site activity it seemed to me that not
>much had changed in terms of the number of protocols extant and the push for
>standardization (which seemed to me back then very preliminary at best).
>
>I hadn't heard anything about the experimental RFC; is there information on
>the web about this?

I guess active participation would have helped. The relevant messages and 
notices are all in the archive.

> > As an IP routing protocol we are supporting IP applications?
> >
> > -Joe
>
>Of course :), but here I was referring to the multitude of approaches and
>target audiences of the protocols - some seem suitable for more esoteric
>situations (sparse networks, etc.) and some perfer proactive to reactive
>approaches, etc.

Right,many IDs (e.g., OLSR) have applicability statements describing some 
of these issues (e.g., sparse vs. dense). So its a good question, but it is 
being addressed and is not the same for all manet approaches.  Some of the 
more operational specifics the WG and community is still learning about so 
therefore the present target of EXPERIMENTAL etc.

>In any case, thank you very much for your reply.  It's helped a lot.
>
>Regards,
>John
>
>--
>John WELLS
>ENSIMAG/3A Télécomm/Réseaux - INRIA Rhône-Alpes
>Virginia Tech MS/Computer Engineering - Networking and Visualization Lab
>tél : 04 76 70 01 86 (en France)
>     : 011 33 4 76 70 01 86 (from the USA)