Last Modified: 2003-06-18
Done | Post as an informational Internet-Drafts a discussion of mobile ad-hoc networking and issues. | |
Done | Agenda bashing, discussion of charter and of mobile ad hoc networking draft. | |
Done | Discuss proposed protocols and issues. Redefine charter. | |
Done | Publish Informational RFC on manet design considerations | |
Done | Review the WG Charter and update | |
Done | Submit AODV specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC | |
Done | Develop I-D for potential common manet encapsulation protocol approach | |
Done | Submit initial I-D(s) of candidate proposed routing protocols and design frameworks | |
Done | Promote implementation, revision, and testing of initial proposed I-D(s) | |
Done | Explore basic performance and implementation issues of initial approaches | |
Done | Explore proposed proactive protocol design commonalities | |
Done | Submit DSR specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC | |
Done | Submit OLSR specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC | |
Done | Submit TBRPF specification to IESG for publication as Experimental RFC | |
Jul 03 | Develop a further focused problem statement and address an approach for a common engineering work effort | |
Nov 03 | Reevaluate the WG's potential based on the problem statement consensus |
split.57th IETF MANET Working Group Minutes 16 July 2003 Minutes Taken by: Scott Corson ---------------------------------------- ---------------------- Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (manet) Agenda Wednesday, July 16 , 1530-1730 1. Agenda Bashing 2. Announcements and IESG Review Updates Working Document Progress Updates 3. AODV Update 4. DSR Update 5. OLSR Update 6. TBRPF Update 7. Discussion of MANET Related Autoconfiguration Issues ---------------------------------------- ----------------------- SUMMARY MINUTES (See Slides for Details) The MANET WG met on Wed, July 16th 15:30-17:30 in Vienna. The meeting began with the traditional agenda bashing session and was then followed by updates of the status of the four core WG protocols being considered for EXPERIMENTAL RFC Status: - Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV) - Dynamic Source Routing (DSR) - Optimized Link State Routing (OLSR) - Topology Dissemination Based on Reverse-Path Forwarding (TBRPF) J. Macker announced that AODV has cleared IESG review and the RFC editor and is now RFC 3651. C. Perkins then gave a brief overview of the protocol status and related implementation status. D. Johnson gave a more detailed overview for DSR, discussing at length the changes between versions 08 and 09 of the draft. (See presentation) A. Zinin mentioned that DSR is still in the queue awaiting initial IESG review. T. Clausen followed with a similar overview of OLSR (See presentation). A. Zinin announced that OLSR had essentially completed IESG review. R. Ogier gave and overview of the latest TBRPF issues and status (See presentation). There are a few pending issues with TBRPF still to be resolved under IESG review. Some IANA considerations are also being resolved and the authors have provided an updated version of the specification to cover those issues. The presentations and discussions of core protocol efforts and IESG review was followed by a general discussion on whether or not MANET auto-configuration should be taken up as a WG work item. There were related presentations on auto-configuration and DNS resolution that provided some discussion fodder for this subject as well. There seems to be strong support for further discussing and working related issues within the WG but no present general agreement on the approaches. J. Macker has suggested that before such a decision is taken, an Informational RFC describing the nature and scope of the problem should be attempted. If such a problem statement could be agreed upon then further consideration could be given to the adoption of this work item and subsequent consideration of specific solutions for specific subcases of the problem. This would also help in discussions dealing with where this work should reside or what additional IETF considerations are merited. There seemed to be agreement on this course of action. |