> I have asked to get a two hour timeslot in the agenda > dedicated for MANEMO. This does not yet appear on > the currently published agenda, but it will get there > eventually. > > However, instead of calling these two hours a BOF > I have asked it to be a second slot for the AUTOCONF > WG meeting, with an agreement from Thomas and > Shubrahansu -- thanks. The reason I'm asking for > this is that I believe we need to make progress on > the problem definition more than solutions. At > this time I felt it would be more productive to do > that when there is no pressure to prove or disprove > the need for the WG to work on the solutions. > > Here's what I would like to see discussed in the > meeting: > > - What the requirements are > - What we can do with existing routing protocols > - What we cannot do with existing routing protocols > > I.e., focusing on and extending the discussion in > draft-manemo-problem-statement Section 5.2 > and draft-manemoarch Section 4.3. I think the > relationship to NEMO Basic Support is fairly clear, > so we should focus on what the holes are in routing > protocols and autoconfiguration tools. > > Before the meeting I would like to see updated > and submitted drafts on these issues. > > I would like to see proposals on how the MANEMO > issues can be addressed with ad hoc routing > tools, and an evaluation of what the issues in > such an approach are. > > While not a topic in the meeting, I would like > to see a draft about the tree-based solution > along with data about its performance in > comparison to some other approaches. > > We also need significant participation from > the ad hoc routing community. Both MANET > and AUTOCONF chairs have agreed to ensure > that this will be in place, both in terms of > meeting participation as well as preparation > of material before the meeting. We also need > the various key people to talk to each other, > not just in the meeting but also beforehand. > I will contact some of you to ensure that > this happens. > > My expectation is that after IETF-69 we've > made progress in understanding what the > problem is, such that a problem description > draft can gain consensus in the routing > and Internet community. With this description, > the next steps are much easier. > > Jari >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
