►
From YouTube: IETF-MANET-20230926-1300
Description
MANET interim meeting session
2023/09/26 1300
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/manet/meetings/
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
B
I've
needed
myself
briefly
there.
Now
you
can
hear
me
I
hope.
Yes,
now
again,
all
right.
Okay,
sure
I
was
just
saying
you
can
advance
the
slides
it's
easier.
So
actually,
maybe
this
the
name
of
the
presentation
and
the
YouTube
thing
I
linked
here-
aren't
completely
conformant
to
the
harassment
policy,
but
anyway.
B
So
I
I
think
I
presented
on
people
at
the
last
ITF
meeting
with
us
to
go
over
briefly
here.
It's
distance,
Vector
algorithm
also
known
as
distributed
development
Ford
so
essentially
similar
to
to
rip,
but
it
does
have
additional
mechanisms.
These
avoid
Loops.
So
you
don't
have
the
count
to
infinity
or
comp.
Some
finite
number
you've
picked
out
of
thin
air
and,
of
course,
the
loop
avoidance
mechanism
under
certain
circumstances
could
lead
to
there
being
no
roots,
there's
a
starvation
avoidance
mechanism.
B
So
as
long
as
you
got
a
route,
you
should
be
able
to
get
to
it,
so
it
also
reacts
faster
to
topology
changes
and
things
like
that.
It's
been
shown
to
be
very
effective
at
networks
that
have
mixtures
of
low
and
high
quality
links
such
as
Wireless
or
hybrid
Wireless.
Wired
networks
does
has
done
well
in
the
battle
mesh
competitions
in
Europe
and
so
forth.
B
So
the
bevel
working
group
has
cranked
out
rfcs
that
were
an
earlier
set
of
experimental
rfcs
they've
been
replaced
by
these.
The
bold
face
entries
here
are
all
standards
proposed
standards
and
the
key
one
is
8966.
It
is
the
payable
routing
protocol.
The
next
two
67
and
68
are
security.
Macus
provides
an
authentication
and
integrity,
and
the
a68
8
provides
encryption
also
using
datagram
TLS,
and
it
has
been
extended
from
that.
There
is
a
source,
specific
routing
and
there's
a
somewhat
interesting
rc9229,
the
last
one.
B
There
you
can
route
using.
You
can
route
IPv6,
sorry
rpv4
traffic
through
they
will
Network,
even
though
the
router
is,
and
the
package
I
mean
the
routers
all
have
just
IPv6
addresses.
So
there
have
been
proposals
for
other
things,
but
the
Bible
working
group
has
been
very
careful
to
really
only
do
technical
development
in
areas
where
there
was
a
demonstrated
demand.
I,
say
people
really
want
to
use
it.
B
For
example,
there
is
a
draft
that
was
never
adopted
by
the
working
group
on
having
a
type
of
service
specific
routing,
so
you
might
have
different
routing
for
different
types
of
service,
and
that
was
there
wasn't
didn't
seem
to
be
enough,
demonstrated
need
for
that
that
wasn't
adopted
or
progressed.
On
the
other
hand,
Source
specific
routing,
9079
was
adopted
and
progressed
and
is
used,
and
it
in
fact
was
required
by
HomeNet
for
and
Babel
is
in
fact
the
mandatory
to
implement
routing
protocol
for
home
net
next
slide.
Please.
B
B
B
This
can
happen
inside
an
802.11,
Wi-Fi
chipset,
so
that
you
really
have
those
software
control
over
it
and
basically
be
able
to
understand
certain
that
it
uses
a
sequence
numbering
and
therefore
you
need
to
maintain
separate
counters
for
unicast
and
multicast
or
in
some
other
way
account
for
that
without
getting
false
indications
of
drops.
When
the
problem
is
not
the
droplet
is
the
reordering,
so
that's
all
through
the
process,
and
is
it
it's
about
we'll
pop
out
as
an
RFC.
Shortly
after
the
final
RFC
editor
things
were
resolved.
B
The
last
one
there
is
currently
NAD
review.
Is
the
round
trip
time
extension.
It
turns
out
that
there's
a
way
to
calculate
a
metric
for
links
that
the
link
is
based
on
the
delay,
router
play
and
you,
of
course,
immediately
say
well,
but
that'll
lead
to
feedback
and
oscillation
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
But
in
fact,
methods
to
deal
with
that
problem
have
been
found
and
this
particular
metric
is
widely
used
in
the
field
very
successfully.
B
So
when
this
draft
explains
that-
and
hopefully
that
will
progress,
there
are
other
than
those
there
are
no
Babel
working
group
drafts.
So
all
the
working
group
graphs
that
existed,
haven't
been
published
are
the
three
listed
on
this
page
and
they're
all
in
process,
as
shown.
So
it
seems
like
a
good
time
and.
C
B
C
B
B
So
what
things
are
in
the
Babel
Charter
that
the
Babel
hasn't
done?
The
only
not
completed
item
described
in
the
charter
was
multicast,
and
this
is
the
charter
language
or
extract
from
the
charter.
Language
wasn't
considered
a
high
priority,
but
as
a
non-primary
focus
to
could
do
multicast
and
it
lists
here
various
things
that
should
be
taken
into
taken
into
account,
probably
using
Pim
SM.
B
B
So
what
would
you
need
to
do
to
the
man,
a
charter
to
move
Babel
maintenance
over?
It's
really
pretty
trivial.
The
most
of
them
in
a
charter
is
I,
read
as
I
read
it
fairly.
General
I
can
accommodate
a
wide
variety
of
things.
The
last
two
paragraphs
one
says
currently
says
that
Monet
will
consult
with
the
Babel
work
Group,
which
will
be
difficult
to
do
after
it
doesn't
exist.
B
B
So
you
might
also
want
to
do
things
with
Monet
Milestones.
You
could
add
a
milestone
to
Monet
related
to
multicast
extensions
for
Babel
and
recently,
partly
in
my
agitation,
there
has
been
a
discussion
of
adapting
Mabel
for
use
in
electrically
a
211
Wi-Fi
mesh,
so
this
I
give
a
presentation
at
117
and
there's
the
pointer
to
the
full
presentation
on
that,
including
pointer
to
that
presentation
includes
a
pointer
to
the
liaison
from
80
to
11,
explicitly
saying
that
they're
fine.
B
A
B
That's
possible
I'm,
not
sure,
what's
been
done
previously
with
protocols
whose
work
was
transferred
to
many,
the
bigger
working
group
mailing
list
is
not
particularly
active.
Currently
I
think
that
the
people
who
are
really
interested
in
Monet
could
adapt
to
moving
the
traffic
to
the
met
a
list.
So
that
seems
like
a
perfectly
reasonable
thing
to
do.
I
think
I
will
I
can
inquire
on
the
Bible
working
mailing
list
as
to
whether
people
see
anything
problematic
with
that.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Let's
say
modularized
in
such
a
way
that
there's
a
different
thrust
for
terrific
classification
that
could,
in
theory,
Also
Serve
other
purposes
than
flow
control.
It
could
be
a
basis,
for
instance,
for
this
Statistics
reporting.
But
my
impression
is
that
there's
not
much
interest
in
doing
this
anymore,
so
I
would
I
would
suggest
to
drop
this
and
not
let
this
come
back
on
the
new
charger.
A
A
A
A
Any
Roger
from
crownover
and
his
colleagues
who
did
the
arrows
rv2
Source,
are
now
working
on
a
new
implementation.
In
go
language,
it
looks
like
that's
not
going
to
be
open
source,
but
there's
still
development
going
on
in
any
case
and
I
think
this
is
something
that
should
reappear
as
a
work
item
in
a
new
charger
and
then
animation,
maybe
some
things
that
some
some
further
work
that
can
be
done.
For
instance,
there
was
a
discussion
on
the
mailing
list
in
the
summer
of
2022
Christopher
doylelov
was
involved
in
the
discussion.
B
A
A
And
then
there
is
the
multi-topology
extension
somebody
came
to
well.
Donald
just
mentioned
for
those
based
routing
in
table
which
was
not
pursued,
but
they
spoke
to
topology
extension
is
if
I
remember
correctly,
also
as
also
experimental
status
and
question
is,
should
we
also
bring
that
to
proposed
Central
status
and
has
anybody
actually
ever
used
it
I,
don't
know
if
Christopher
wants
to
say
something
about
that.
D
D
A
D
There
can
I
just
say
that
when
I
was
recently
looking
at
LSR
V2,
there
is
a
small
tweak
that
might
be
of
interest
if
people
were
ever
running
it
in
a
slow
mode,
only
only
respond
to
changes,
action
to
permit
sending
remote
to
your
fees.
When
you
notice
someone
who's
joined
to
the
network,
that's
a
possible
possible
sort
of
7466
style,
minor
tweak,
adding
permissions
that
don't
actually
affect
interoperability.
D
A
A
I
was
really
hoping
for
some
more
support
from
partition
puts
known
participants
of
this
working
group,
but
on
the
other
end,
I'm
myself
guilty
of
not
expressing
support
with
my
chair
at
off.
I
will
still
do
that,
because
I
do
support
adoption
of
these
three
growths
by
adding
variable
maintenance
and
extension
also
seems
like
a
no-brainer
to
me
whether
we
worded
as
a
specific
work
item,
or
we
edit
this
to
the
stanza
about
Ozark
maintenance
in
a
way
that
the
Donald
has
already
suggested,
is
only
minor
item
of
discussion.
A
D
B
B
But
there
are
there's
software
like
I,
guess,
open
wrt
and
things
like
that
which,
on
which
this
could
the
Wi-Fi
mesh
and
use
of
what
could
be
built
so
I
I
think
I
see
a
path
to
up
to
people
who
actually
want
to
do
that.
I
think,
as
you
might
also
mention,
and
apologize
for
that
I
didn't
push
this
meeting
on
the
Bible
mailing
list,
but
I
will
specifically
report
about
it.
B
A
C
A
Was
at
least
to
me
never
quite
clear
whether
they
wanted
to
have
a
whole
new
protocol,
or
would
they
would
want
to
make
modifications
to
an
existing
protocol
or
a
video,
for
instance,
and
I?
Think
others
have
also
pointed
these
out
on
the
on
the
mailing
list
that
the
they
were
not
decided
on
that?
As
far
as
I
know,
good
makeup,
foreign.
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
There
was
always
a
lot
of
pushback
against
this
idea
or
maybe
not
to
the
idea
as
such,
but
to
be
proposed
specifications
at
the
time,
so
that
never
happened
and
again
I
would
say.
If
there's
nobody
willing
to
take
this
up,
then
we
can
just
forget
about
it.
Just
apart
from
how
many
technical
merits
I.
D
I
have
done
theoretical
work
on
on
borrowing
the
rack,
our
rep
mechanism
from
iotv
into
OLS
rv2,
which
is
a
and
even
generalizing
it
to
a
sort
of
policy
based
approach
to
whether
to
what
you're
prepared
to
what
note,
what
routers
are
prepared
to
do.
That
makes
them
reactive
or
proactive,
and
if
I
am
I'm
not
in
a
position
to
be
somebody
who's.
A
major
driver
in
in
writing.
Taking
that
work,
I'd
be
prepared
to
contribute
in
a
secondary
role.
The
ideas
that
have
been
had,
but
you
need
someone
who's
actually
prepared
to
drive.
A
A
A
So
yeah
I
have
some
idea
that
was
inspired
by
by
beer
on
doing
that.
The
best
thing
based
version
but
I
have
still
really
stressed
it
out
a
bit
further.
But
it's
not
even
a
an
intimate
for
us
in
the
making
at
the
moment.
I
would
really
like
to
do
a
bit
of
implementation
and
see
if
it
could
actually
work
before
printing
that,
but
I
still
think
that
multicast
in
general
should
be
an
item
on
the
new
Charter.
E
So
so
I
think
a
lot
of
this
obviously
needs
to
be
discussed
on
the
mailing
list,
but
my
my
concern
is
that
you
know
my
observation
since
becoming
ad.
Is
that
there's
a
severe
lack
of
enthusiasm
to
essentially
work
on
anything
and
I
I?
What
I
really
want
to
see
is
number
one.
The
documents
that
are
already
working
group
documents
actually
make
some
progress
and
number
two
I.
You
know
we
need
to
see
people
that
stand
up
and
say
yes.
E
This
is
important
to
me
that,
yes,
this
is
something
that
we
want
to
work
on,
because
if,
if
there's
only
one
person,
that's
prepared
to
do
any
work
on
a
particular
area,
then
you
know
getting
that.
Recharted
is
really
not
what
we
want
to
be
looking
to
do.
We
need.
We
need
to
get
participation
and
enthusiasm
on
this
new
work,
because
otherwise
we're
just
going
through
an
exercise,
and
there
really
is
not
helpful
to
anybody.
So
so
that's
really
my
input,
I
I,
think
number
one
it
need.
E
There
needs
to
be
discussion
on
the
mailing
list,
showing
support
for
items
that
you
want
to
add
to
the
charter
number
two.
You
need
to
flesh
out
that
chart
or
on
the
mailing
list
and
then
number
three.
We
make
a
decision
as
to
what
we
do
with
the
working
group,
based
on
on
the
outputs
from
those
two
things.
A
B
E
E
Right
and
I
think
one
of
one
of
the
issues
I
saw
was
you
know
that
that
there
was
a
presentation
at
the
at
the
last
ietf
by
basically
one
individual
that
wants
to
work
on
one
particular
thing
and
there
was
no
enthusiasm
from
anybody
else
that
I
could
see
in
the
working
group,
and
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
keep
a
working
group
open.
You
know,
so
somebody
can
One.
Singular
person
can
work
on
their
pet
project.
E
I
mean
that
doesn't
that
doesn't
serve
anybody
well,
so
I
think
we
really
need
to
focus
in
on
what
is
it?
That's
left
to
do
in
Manet
that
we
need
to
get
completed
and
then
number
two.
Is
there
actually
anything
that
the
community
has
the
enthusiasm
to
work
on
that's
important
that
will
get
implemented,
and
if
the
answer
to
that
is
no,
then
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
on
you
know
where,
where
do
we
move
forward?
Because
re-chartering
is
not
gonna
solve
that
fundamental
issue?.
A
E
E
A
B
A
E
Obviously
we
need
to
recharter
to
allow
for
that,
but
we
we
need
to
see
and
and
I
and
I
need
to
see
that
on
the
mailing
list,
people
in
support
of
that
new
work
and
actually
willing
to
do
it,
because
otherwise
we're
going
to
end
up
with
a
recharger
and
years
of
you
know
not
much
getting
produced
because
of
lack
of
enthusiasm
and
I
I.
Don't
want
to
do
that.
So
so,
really,
my
ask:
is
let's
get
this
to
the
let's
get
this
discussion
onto
the
mailing
list?
B
Right
I
basically
agree
with
all
the
above,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
one
thing
wasn't
lost,
which
was
there
has
been
some
discussion,
mention
of
satellite
routing
as
I
say,
orbital,
you
know
things
and
I
did
look
in
looking
at
the
charter.
I
actually
thought
about
whether
there
was
anything
in
the
charter
which
would
need
to
be
adjusted
for
that
and
I
didn't
actually
see
anything
it's
in
the
chart.
D
A
C
E
I
I
mean
personally
I
think
you
can
bullet
point
it
to
say
the
these
are
the
areas
that
we
see
for
possible
new
work
items
in
a
in
a
revised
Charter
without
too
much
detail,
and
then
you
know
see
what
see
what
response
we
get
I
mean.
If,
if
there's
really
no
response
to
this,
then
you
know
that
kind
of
gives
us
our
answer
right
there
and
I
I
think
you
also
need
to
give
the
the
working
group
the
option
to
introduce
new
things
that
perhaps
aren't
on
that.
E
C
E
D
I,
don't
have
a
customer
I,
don't
have
anyone
doing
anything
so
so
I
might
be
prepared
to
support
things
and
in
the
one
tweak
area.
I
might
take
a
tweak
area
that
I
mentioned
earlier.
I
might
take
a
lead
in,
but
but
I'm
not
a
driving
force
I'm,
not
somebody
who's
going
to
be
up
as
intro.
This
shows
there's
interest
right
right.
E
Yeah
I
think
I
I'm,
not
sure
anybody
else
is
going
to
say
anything,
So
yeah,
so
so,
let's
I
I
think
we
can
probably
end
it
here.
Let's
get
that
email
out
to
the
working
group
mailing
list
and
let's
see
where,
where
it
goes
from
from
there
have
I
I,
think
the
discussion
on
there
is
going
to
be
very
telling
in
terms
of
what
we
do
from
here
and
and
then.
C
A
B
E
Need
to
think
about
what's
going
to
happen
with
that,
but
probably
you
know:
I
I,
I
I'm
I
am
reluctant
to
move
maintenance
stuff
into
rtgwg
because
there's
enough
stuff
in
there,
as
as
it
is
so
you
know
that's
something
that
I
need
to
talk
to
my
other
ads
about.
But
what
I'm
not
going
to
do
is
re-charter
a
working
group
just
to
do
maintenance
on.