►
From YouTube: IETF106-MANET-20191120-1520
Description
MANET meeting session at IETF106
2019/11/20 1520
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/proceedings/
D
F
B
F
F
F
F
F
G
Actually,
did
you
may
notice
that
there's
some
changes
in
each
of
the
documents
at
the
time
the
comments
came
in
I,
mrs.
Lee
Berger
I
made
the
changes
to
the
document,
but
didn't
push
them
so
I
believe
that
all
any
comment
that
has
been
received
has
been
addressed,
but
it's
been
a
while.
So
you
know
we
should
go
through
the
list
and
go
through
them.
Okay,.
G
F
F
G
F
G
Yeah
sorry
I
talked
to
mrs.
Liu
Berger
again,
I
talked
to
David
about
it
that
the
slide
presentation
was
actually
joint
work
with
David
Wiggins
I
talked
to
him
about
jumping
on
trying
to
get
a
draft
out.
Briefly,
we
talked
about
trying
to
push
it
for
this
meeting.
When
we
heard
about
Stan
I
thought
that
was
a
little
tight,
so
we
should
be
able
to
do
that
and
we're
happy
to
send
you
a
first
draft
that
were
what
we
put
together
and
collaborate
on
it
if
you're
willing.
Yes,.
F
G
So
this
was
what
I
was
gonna
ask
on
the
prior
slide.
We
had
had
an
agreement
about
two
or
three
meetings
ago
ago
to
do
an
adoption,
call
on
a
1/4
document,
and
so
just
one
apologies.
Yes,
so
in
terms
of
the
prior
slide,
we
were
talking
about
documents,
I
think
we
had
one
more
that
had
been
discussed
in
the
working
group
and
the
intent
was
to
do
an
adoption
call
on
it.
So
I
had
hoped
that
we
could
do
that.
Adoption
call
and
it's
the.
F
G
G
G
F
F
E
Rick
Taylor,
so
ironically,
Stan
and
I
were
just
putting
pen
to
paper
for
a
dewlap
extension
for
a
sparse
mode
pin,
but
obviously
events
have
overtaken
that
slightly
so
and
it's
still
early
days,
so
it
wasn't
quite
ready
to
come
here
right.
We
haven't
worked
out
whether
there
was
any
good
begin.
That's
Twp
extensions,
not
multicast.
Many
routing,
I.
H
Yeah,
the
pendants,
of
course,
and
what
they'll
work
if
the
workgroup
thinks
has
every
deliver
that
that
specific
item
in
the
Charter
was
actually
the
results
of
compromise
that
we
got
into
many
years
ago
with
the
off
Sadie's,
because
we
had
had
a
similar
item
at
the
Charter.
There
was
a
document
that
was
produced
that
ended
up
being
also
specific,
and
we
in
the
aegis,
I
did
not
publish
that
draft.
But
when
we
came
back
to
reach
our
terminate
at
that
time,
we
wanted
to
add
that
item
in.
I
J
E
So
Rick
Taylor
again
confession
time:
I'm,
actively
working
on
multicast
back
at
home
at
work
and
I've
looked
at
SMF
and
I'm.
Actually
looking
at
the
stuff
that's
coming
out
of
in
and
looking
at
doing,
variations
there
and
I'm
actually
unconvinced
whether
what
we're
doing
is
particularly
many
unique
I
mean
it
may
be
some
ways
to
make.
E
If
it
was
to
be
something
I
wrote
up,
I
would
probably
take
it
back
to
pin
because
they're
the
guys
who
really
know
about
this
stuff
and
I
I.
Remember
it
was
Brian
Adamson
and
Justin's
team
who
were
looking
heavily
at
SMF,
etc
and
they're,
not
here
anymore,
so
I,
don't
know
what
I'm
trying
to
say
about
that.
But
it's
a
comment.
H
That
goes
back
to
the
same
point
about
the
last
thing,
which
is
actually
your
last
bullet
right.
We
need
to
if
at
some
point
or
at
some
point,
we
need
to
discuss,
know
where
do
we
go
right?
Yeah
here
were
the
new
items
that
would
pick
up
any
of
the
old
stuff.
I
do
remember,
Justin,
saying
at
one
point
that,
yes,
he
had
been
working
on
multicast,
but
that,
because
of
work
constraints,
he
couldn't
bring
it
here,
not
that
he
didn't
want
to,
but
he
couldn't
bring
it
here.
J
J
E
E
Experimental
RFC,
sorry
that
talks
about
best
practices
when
doing
tense
about
flooding.
It's
not
a
solution,
so
there's
a
danger
that
if
MANET
stops
and
says
well,
SMF
is
good
enough.
People
might
think
it
is
good
enough
and
I'm
not
convinced
it
is
there's.
A
second
point
to
this,
which
is
a
lot
of
the
very
many
specific
multicast
topics
are
kind
of
being
picked
up
the
link
layer.
Now
a
lot
of
the
meshing
radios
are
doing
multicast,
that's
tuned
to
their
link,
their
technologies,
so
I
would
be
pushing.
E
F
F
More
energy
in
the
group
I've
been
talking
with
our
ad
earlier
this
week.
I
have
couple
of
ideas
also
to
bring
back
some
some
all's.
Our
work
may
be
because
otherwise
we
could
rename
ourselves
to
the
developed
working
group.
Almost
I
do
have
an
idea
myself
on
another
deal.
A
data
item
I
need
to
check
whether
that
actually
holds
water
but
I'm,
hoping
to
write
it
up
and
have
it
ready
here
also
somewhere
in
January.
F
That's
outside
the
scope
of
our
current
charter.
At
that
meeting
in
Montreal,
some
people
expressed
interest
in
working
on
that,
since
I
have
also
had
email
from
somebody
from
outside
this
community.
Who
was
interested
in
that
I
have
incurred
anchors
this
person
to
take
that
to
our
mailing
list.
That
hasn't
happened
yet
so.
F
That
would
be
another
thing
to
pick
up
some
topics
that
are
not
covered
by
our
current
a
charter,
but
then
we
would
need
to
reach
out
and
I
can
see
that
there
has
to
be
some
evidence
that
there
are
people
there
actually
doing
the
work
for
that
to
go
down.
Well,
it
already,
and
the
ISD
in
general
I
think.