Subject: [manet] Manet minutes

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:15:56 -0500

56th IETF MANET Working Group Minutes 
20 March 2003

Thanks to Brian Adamson for scribing the general meeting minutes.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (manet) Agenda 
Thursday, Mar , 1500-1700

1. Agenda Bashing (5 min)
2. Review of Charter/Milestone and IRTF Update (10 min)

Working Document Progress Updates

3. AODV Update (20 min)
4. DSR Update (20 min)
5. OLSR Update (20 min
6. TBRPF Update (20 min)

7. Further Progression of Documents (5 min)
8. Next Steps: Problem Statement Consensus and Standards Track Approach (20 
min)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Macker (WG co-chair) presented the meeting agenda.  Scott Corson (WG co-
chair) was absent from this meeting.

Rechartering Review (see updated IETF website)

Joe Macker next presented the MANET rechartering status.  A new charter and 
updated milestones have been approved and posted.  In reviewing the charter 
text, it was pointed out IESG input added an item concerning congestion control 
of MANET routing protocols to the working group charter goals. There was Chair 
and WG consensus that the statement in the charter concerning this should be 
clarified.  (I.e. make it clear that the congestion control mentioned does not 
imply “TCP fairness” but instead is intended to make sure that “implosion” 
avoidance of routing control, etc is addressed … and the protocols’ performance 
issues in these regards are understood.)

An overview of the interim working group goals and milestones was provided.  It 
was announced that the IESG had approved AODV for Experimental and that it 
should be in process with the RFC Editor.

IRTF Update

Elizabeth Belding-Royer provided an overview of IRTF Ad hoc Network Scaling 
(ANS).  Contact and mailing list information was provided.  Both Elizabeth and 
Scott Corson will be serving as co-chairs.

See the IRTF ANS Website: http://ww.flarion.com/ans-research

IRTF ANS goals were presented.  Scalability with an emphasis on developing 
metrics for assessing protocol performance is a primary focus.  There was some 
discussion concerned what problem spaces would be taken on within the IRTF.

A “Bar BOF” was announced in the evening of 9:30 PM, 20 March 2003 to gather 
more interest and feedback for IRTF ANS topics, goals, etc.  Hilton San 
Francisco hotel bar will be the location.

The first intended ANS meeting was announced to take place with the ACM Mobihoc 
conference:

Sunday 7-10PM 1 June, location Annapolis, Maryland with Mobihoc.

AODV Status

Charlie Perkins presented an AODV update.  There were a few changes to the 
document as it made its way through the recent IESG review.
There was added clarification for handling subnet routes.  It was clarified 
that subnet routes are handled the same as host routes.  If a specific host on 
a subnet is unreachable, the subnet leader may send an ICMP “host unreachable” 
instead of a route error message for the particular subnet host(s).
Editorial changes, applicability statement, IANA considerations, etc.

DSR Status

Dave Johnson presented an update on the DSR ID status.  A small number of 
changes occurred, mainly some rearrangement and integration.  An optional flow 
state extension was, however, added back into the draft where it was previously 
in a separate “DSR Flow” draft.
Q:  If you lose the first packet with the full source route, what happens?
A: A route error is sent back on packets with unknown flow id.
Q:  Is the interim packet loss a concern?
A:  DSR salvaging usually handles this and there are documented studies of 
packet delivery ratios.

OLSR Status

Thomas Clausen (INRIA) presented an update on the OLSR ID status.
A recent ID was posted and included a number of changes, most of which were 
editorial and involved reorganization of the document to improve readability. A 
clarification was provided regarding the handling and discussion of multiple 
interfaces.  Also, the document now clearly separates auxiliary features such 
as host/network association messages from core protocol features. A “validity 
time” has been added to the messages. One mistake was made in that proper 
updating of the internal routing table with 2-hop information was accidentally 
dropped in the transition from version 7 to version 8 of the spec.  This will 
fixed ASAP.  Thomas indicated that there have been a number of reviews and 
comments already since the version 8 draft release.
What next?
Chair comment:  Single interface and multiple interface sections are pretty 
redundant.  Could be integrated?  Document would shorter, simpler.
A: Yes with the consensus of the working group this could be done.
Chair Comment:  “Willingness” parameter can be zero and this MAY affect some of 
the election algorithms, state maintenance, etc.  Recommend doublechecking 
this.
A: Agreed.
Thomas:  Feels document is ready to move forward to Exp. RFC pending 
integrating current feedback and comments.  
The Working Chair recommended an additional quick revision cycle (or 
explanation of known changes) to provide working group members a little more 
time for review and input.
Thomas: Will commit to quick turn-around.
AD Comment: Read ID guidelines, etc to quickly meet IESG requirements.
Thomas:  Can the ADs review the current security considerations to help with 
this?
AD: Yes.

TBRPF Status

Richard Ogier presented a TBRPF ID update.  
The document now references the Secure Neighbor Discovery (SEND) working group.  
Richard feels document is ready for Exp. RFC submission.  
Richard Ogier went on to present suggestions for merging proactive routing 
protocol ideas.
Chair comments: With regards to not sending periodic topology updates when 
there are no topology changes?  With regards to protocol robustness what is the 
current level of understanding, while a good scalability idea, is robustness 
questionable? … a lost update is now a more significant problem to be resolved.  
Agreed it is worth further discussion.
There was some discussion among the OLSR and TBRPF authors that they were 
attempting to work together. An IPR discussion ensued relating to people’s 
level of comfort in working together on a future document. The authors were 
attempting to work these issues out.  

Further Work Strategy

Joe Macker presented some strawman discussion topics for future work 
strategies.

First and foremost the WG needs the authors’ commitment to revise the documents 
as needed and address any issues with present upcoming submission goals.  We 
would like to see WG last call inputs occurring within 2 weeks or so.
Relating to the chair’s schedule issues, most authors indicated a commitment to 
quickly respond to WG input.

Upcoming WG issues beyond progression of the current documents are:
- some level of problem statement consensus. 
- IETF vs. IRTF problem split considerations.  
- agreement on consensus-based engineering approach.

Discussion ensued including any relationship with the previously briefed OSPFv3 
with manet extensions work (Fred Baker).  It was stated any proposals like this 
would be further brought up within the OSPF WG for possible consideration 
first. The chair and others expressed interest in this related work but the 
proper forum and scope had not been identified.  This was not seen as a 
replacement for the manet routing work ongoing, but may provide some practical 
application.

Relating to security it was stated that some degree of further threat 
assessment should be developed for helping in understanding MANET security 
considerations.

WG Comment: Many of the ongoing security working areas need people with 
wireless experience involved.  Suggest interested parties get involved. 

Ongoing work in more distributed security and routing area solutions may likely apply.
The chair asked the WG to begin considering the details of appropriate 
engineering issues for the next phase of work.

Open Discussion

There was some discussion of a common problem statement understanding.  Using 
numbers of nodes was considered non-exact because of the numerous problem 
dimensions involved in any performance scenario. The chair also commented that 
the WG should avoid the “bakeoff contest” method since this tended to stimulate 
more research-oriented approaches in the past and less group-based engineering. 

Comment: Need typical example networks in mind or we go down the rathole of the 
past.
Chair:  Agreed. Need some level of applicability and problem statement 
understanding is needed.
Comment:  There appears to be some competitive spirit here for what follows, 
but collaboration requires something different … what are thoughts on the 
overall architecture.  Will the working group be split up into sub-components 
to tackle different areas?
Chair: We’re not all going to agree 100% … we need to find the common 
overlapping areas through discussion and focus on core components that can be 
engineered…we will then build off “lessons learned” to date. 
Comment: Believes “component based architecture” can help the group to work 
together.
Other WG comment: Agrees we need a family of components to work together … 
including support for connection/gateway to the Internet …
More WG comments were raised relating to the specific approach that could be 
taken.

Chair: Don’t forget, while I am sensing among some members a reluctance to 
target the simpler problem space, we presently don’t have “Standard” ways to do 
manet routing … even for small networks with moderate mobility…that would be 
useful specification output from this group (this group has already produced 
useful experimental output and a set of working prototype implementations) … 
but at the same time any design shouldn’t preclude the ability to scale well 
through design extensions (e.g., fuzzy-sighted link state extension) or simply based 
upon inherent design properties, etc.  ultimately good core designs should be 
extensible and also work reasonable well on a moderate scale without 
extensions.

Q:  Are we committed to two protocols classes (proactive, reactive)?
Chair: This is undecided … it is one taxonomy to consider (and has some 
rationale based upon previous WG development and work elements), but hybrid 
behavior and others issues may be addressed making the taxonomy less accurate.  
It is up to the WG to discuss what seems sensible in the near future … it is 
likely that “one size fits all” won’t make it, but the solution space should 
perhaps be limited to two at most …

At this point, the meeting was adjourned.  The chair asked the presenters to 
please submit their slides electronically if they had not already done so.

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet