Subject: [manet] Reactive protocol specification document status

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:17:53 -0700

Hello folks,

I am the manet WG's designated editor for the chartered reactive protocol
specification document, currently draft-dymo.  An alternative reactive
protocol has been documented in draft-loadng.  The authors of both documents
were tasked to see whether they could work together to produce a combined
reactive protocol specification for the WG.  This email represents my
summary of where we are and what next steps I will be taking.

Working with the authors of draft-loadng, I attempted to merge the LOADng
ideas into the existing IETF MANET reactive protocol draft. However, my
efforts to craft a mutually acceptable merged document, and to establish an
editorial process to manage further changes to the merged document, have
not been successful.  During this time, draft-loadng has continued to 
evolve,
and the authors expressed their consensus opinion to abandon the current
WG draft and replace it with draft-loadng.  I do not believe this is the 
best
way forward.

I will be submitting a new revision of AODVv2/DYMO on Monday.  For
transparency, the IETF Issue tracker has been set up to track further 
changes
to this Internet Draft.   I believe that this draft can serve very well as
the basis for expedient completion of the reactive charter item, and that it
also satisfies the technical requirements of the LOADng protocol.

Please review the draft after it is posted, and contribute issues that
can be added to the tracker and then resolved.

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:19:50 -0700

Hello again folks,

PS. If anyone is interested in a more detailed history - just drop an email.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 10/19/2012 9:17 AM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> WG draft and replace it with draft-loadng.  I do not believe this is 
> the best
> way forward.
>

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:32:29 +0100

Hi Charlie,

I agree that we should complete the AODVv2 is very interesting and had alot
of years work, so I will review the new work and send my comments. Please
note that I already commented on the last draft and very interested that
the WG submits this WG draft to IESG as soon as possible, for WG progress.
I ask also whom responsible to update the milestones for AODVv2 as
submitted in Dec 2012.

Regards
Abdussalam

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Charles E. Perkins
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> ______________________________**_________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/manet<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet>
>

---

From: "JP Vasseur (jvasseur)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:40:58 +0000

Hi Charlie,

On Oct 19, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

> not been successful.  During this time, draft-loadng has continued to evolve,
> WG draft and replace it with draft-loadng.  I do not believe this is the best
> way forward.
> 

JP> I cannot agree more with you.

> transparency, the IETF Issue tracker has been set up to track further changes

JP> Great news Charlie. Looking forward to seeing the new revision of the WG
document, I would personally very much favor naming AODVv2; making it 
compatible with the other proposal is I think very valuable, as long we we keep 
the options of AODVv2 too.

> can be added to the tracker and then resolved.

JP> Will certainly do. Thanks for this effort.

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

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:41:14 +0100

Hi Charlie

>From the history I would like to know, why AODVv2 status was not presented
in the last f2f meeting 84. I recommend any WG draft should have at least
even a small status comment on it, in each f2f meeting, or on the list each
3 months, because I feel lost sometimes.

 I commented on the draft before 84 meeting and wait to see some status
reflection but the meeting did not represent that. I feel like my
volunteering efforts is a waste if their was no reflection as status after
3 months.

AB

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:26:48 -0700

Hello Abdussalam,

On 10/19/2012 9:41 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:

>
> From the history I would like to know, why AODVv2 status was not 
> presented in the last f2f meeting 84. I recommend any WG draft should 
> have at least even a small status comment on it, in each f2f meeting, 
> or on the list each 3 months, because I feel lost sometimes.

I do indeed regret that I did not make a new AODVv2 revision at the last 
IETF meeting.
At the time, I was worried that doing so would make it even more 
difficult to forge
an effective agreement with the LOADng author team.

>  I commented on the draft before 84 meeting and wait to see some 
> status reflection but the meeting did not represent that. I feel like 
> my volunteering efforts is a waste if their was no reflection as 
> status after 3 months.

Your comments are appreciated and will be taken into account.  It's true 
that I have
delayed this path forward, and I intend to avoid any such delays in the 
future.

-- 
Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Bo Berry <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:15:38 -0400

Charlie
Thanks for updating and posting.  Fulfilling the WG reactive charter
is important. 

-Bo