Subject: WG Feedback requested

From: Scott Corson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:30:11 -0500

Folks,

First off, welcome back from the holidays for those who took time off.

The issue I'm raising was discussed at the SLC meeting and I want to raise
it on the list.  

We are in the process of milestone revamping in the WG charter, and are
looking to clarify the current scope of work.

As mentioned at the meeting, a number of proposals seem best suited for
highly scaled manet networks. The chairs suggest that the manet WG scope
down the areas of near term work until reasonable progress is achieved. The
rough idea is to concentrate on several items for near term work and
progress.

(1) reactive unicast protocol
(2) proactive unicast protocol
(3) flooding protocol work

----------------
The concerns regarding a number of the proposal(s) are:

(1) primarily useful for scaling manets ..longer term scope issue
(2) perceived lack of broad interest .. independent of WG scope

Would anyone interested in *implementing* TORA, ZRP-related drafts and/or
LANMAR please let me know?  And I do not mean simulation.  I would prefer
that you respond to the list.  I do not want to hear from document authors
or parties working directly with authors.  

I am trying to gauge interest in these drafts as WG work items. 

Thanks,

-Scott

---

From: "Fred L. Templin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:44:23 -0800

Scott,

> LANMAR please let me know?

We believe clustering/hierarchical routing is an important component of
MANET activities to achieve scalability. SRI is interested in integrating
a hierarchical routing protocol such as LANMAR with TBRPF. If LANMAR software 
does not become available in the near term, SRI will be interested in 
implementing it subject to availability of resources.

Fred Templin
[email-masked]

---

From: "Jari T. Malinen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:10:06 -0800

Scott,

I think the addressing / Internet connectivity should remain a part
of the charter. If folks want to use Manets for practical networking,
these would be needed. Also, technically these are more minor
problems than the actual routing algorithms and discussed in papers
already years ago.

Hence, I second having addressing as one item for the short term.

> -Scott

BR,

-Jari