Subject: NEWSFLASH? Ad hoc networking RFC needed...

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 17:08:08 -0500

Hi,

After today's meeting I had this to say....

I work for a tiny company that is actually trying to commercialize ad hoc
networks.  Our
business is to build wireless ad hoc routers on to chips.  We have a routing
protocol that
is sort of different from most of those that are worked on in MANET but
loosely based on
the DV class of algorithm.  There is nothing I would like to see more than a
standards track
RFC ASAP.  This does not seem possible given the current research interests
of the current
protocol proposers.  Don't get me wrong, finding the best way is very
important, but
commercial systems don't always have to be the best right away (right?).

It seems to me that what should be done is to MOVE all the proactive and
reactive drafts
to the IRTF while the experimental RFCs go into bakeoff.  Meanwhile a new
charter item
for the MANET group should be added which is to create a standards track ad
hoc routing
RFC in one year.  Period.  It won't be optimal, it won't be the best, but it
will allow people
that are commercializing to inter-operate and point to a standard.  I would
eispecially like
to emphasize the "running code" aspects and I would expect this to be a code
driven
effort rather than a "simulation" driven effort.  Practical things like
cross platform portability
and compatibility with the most popular wireless modes would be the most
important.

This may be a way to unify all the mind power the group has into creating a
practical and
time limited ( I mean hard deadlines) solution.  Do you think if we set hard
deadlines on
a standards track draft that we could do it in a year?  Maybe some folks
would have to
bury the hatchets and this could be a very constructive exercise.  Comments?

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 17:20:51 +0100 (CET)

Phil,

On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Phil Neumiller wrote:

<SNIP>

> There is nothing I would like to see more than a standards track
> of the current protocol proposers.

<SNIP>

> reactive drafts to the IRTF while the experimental RFCs go into bakeoff.

I am not sure I understand what your point is here? From my perspective,
at least some of the currently proposed protocols are out of the "research
phase", based on rather stable algorithms and in active experimentation
(both inside and outside of the academic world). And as such, I believe,
candidates for experimentation and/or eventual standardization.

<SNIP>

> Meanwhile a new charter item for the MANET group should be added which
> is to create a standards track ad hoc routing RFC in one year.  Period.
> It won't be optimal, it won't be the best, but it  will allow people
> that are commercializing to inter-operate and point to a standard.

Wouldn't that just be starting over again in a different version of the
problem we have allready, and which was the core of our last meeting?
Which of the existing protocols are mature enough - and how do we really
measure that maturity?

>  I would especially like to emphasize the "running code" aspects and I
> would expect this to be a code driven effort rather than a "simulation"
> driven effort.  Practical things like cross platform portability

I agree that these things are important, and I believe that "running code"
is already being addressed for long by the WG. However, there is the issue
of "implementing your own protocol": clearly, it's possible for the author
of a draft to implement his/her protocol "perfectly" - based on intimate
knowledge of how the protocol is "supposed to work". What's more
interresting, really, is if other people are able to read and understand
the protocol specification and make an efficient - and interoperable -
implementation hereof.

What is good is to have "external"  ppeople (i.e. non-authors)  implement
the protocols, conduct experiments and provide feedback. Maybe it would be
of interrest for you and your company to help improve the existing
protocols this way?  I am sure, that this would be welcomed, and that it
would speed up the progress in the WG.

<SNIP>

-- 

-------------------------------------------
  Thomas Heide Clausen
  Civilingeniør i Datateknik (cand.polyt)
  M.Sc in Computer Engineering

  E-Mail: [email-masked]
  WWW:    http://www.cs.auc.dk/~voop
-------------------------------------------