Subject: Charter revisions

From: Steve Batsell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:11:34 -0400

We need to rewrite the charter for the proposed working group. I would
like your comments on proposed changes. I have enclosed (below) a copy
of the old charter. Mail changes to the mailing list. Once we have
rewritten the charter, I will put it on the mailing list for more
comments.

Thanks,

Steve

=====================================================
Mobile Mesh Networks (mmnet) Charter

Chair(s)

* Stephen Batsell <[email-masked]>
* M.Scott Corson <[email-masked]>
* Joe Macker  <[email-masked]>

Routing Area Director

* Joel Halpern <[email-masked]>

Mailing List Information

* General Discussion:  [email-masked]
* To Subscribe: [email-masked]
        * In body: subscribe mmnet
* Archive: ftp://mars.itd.nrl.navy.mil/pub/mmnet

Description of Working Group

A "mobile mesh" network is an autonomous system of mobile routers
connected
by wireless links, the union of which form an arbitrary graph. The
routers
are free to move randomly; thus, the network's wireless topology may
change
rapidly and unpredictably. The mobile networks of interest here consist
of
routers which are free to move about arbitrarily. These routers and the
end
stations may be located in airplanes, ships, tanks, trucks, cars,  even
on
people (wearable computers), and there may be multiple hosts per router.

Such networks are envisioned to have dynamic, often rapidly changing,
mesh
topologies consisting of bandwidth-constraintedwireless links. These
characteristics create a set of underlying assumptions for protocol
design
which differ from those used for the higher speed, fixed topology
Internet.

The focus of the working group will be to develop both unicast and
multicast
routing protocols that will operate efficiency in a mobile mesh
environment.
The working group will also address issues that directly relate to the
routing
functionality such as interfacing to the link layer and interaction with
or
integration of a resource reservation protocol such that the integrated
services
internetworking  environment can be extended into the mobile domain.

Goals and Milestones

December 95
        Hold BOF at Dallas IETF Discuss mobile mesh requirements and the
        architecture RFC.

March 95
        Los Angeles IETF: Hold first full meeting. Discuss what are
appropriate
        routing protocols for a mobile environment.
        
June 95
        Review Internet Draft routing protocols. Discuss interface
issues with
        both the link layer and the reservation protocol. Input comments
into
         the RSVP working group.

Future Meetings
        Review Internet Drafts for interface with link and transport
layers.

        Submit mobile mesh routing  protocols (unicast and multicast) to
the
        IESG as proposed standards.

        Submit mobile mesh interface documents to the IESG as proposed
        standards.

--
Steve Batsell, Network Research Group Leader
MS  6367, Bldg 6012,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831
423-574-7401 (phone)
423-574-0680 (Fax)
[email-masked]
http://www.epm.ornl.gov/~sgb/net.html

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 11:19:03 -0400

1. Obviously, our Goals and Milestones should be changed.    Perhaps 
     we should be dedicating some time to "create a set of underlying 
     assumptions for protocol design" [next to last paragraph]?  I don't 
     think we came to closure in Dallas.  Along these lines, perhaps we 
     should be identifying specific services that our mobile mesh 
     architecture is intended to support? 
     
     2. I agree that the primary focus of the WG should be resolving 
     "routing" issues.  And we,ve listed 2 issues that the WG will also 
     address (interfacing to the link layer & interaction with integration 
     [sic] of a resource reservation protocol).  I suggest adding to the 
     list: "developing innovative techniques for conserving bandwidth on 
     the wireless links".
     
     For example, we could investigate ways to exploit the broadcast nature 
     of our media to control and/or reduce the number of network accesses 
     needed to deliver data reliably.  I am not talking about a link layer 
     protocol here; I'm suggesting that there may be methods that the 
     Transport layer could employ to provide a reliable multi-destination 
     delivery service.  Current multicast services do not provide the 
     desired reliability.  Neither do they provide a means for originators 
     to identify specific destinations of a single transmission.  Our Army 
     users are asking for both features.  The desire, of course, is to 
     provide the service using common network and transport protocols that 
     work within an architecture supported by our mobile mesh routing 
     protocols.  If we choose not to solve the problem within the WG, at 
     the very least, we need to provide the necessary support for these 
     additional features when developing our routing protocols.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Charter revisions
Author:  Steve Batsell <[email-masked]> at SMTPGATE
Date:    4/17/96 3:33 PM

Thanks,
     
Steve

     
Chair(s)

Routing Area Director

Mailing List Information

     

Goals and Milestones
     
December 95
     
March 95
     
June 95
     
Future Meetings

---

From: "vivek (v.) kapil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:08:00 -0400

The year in Goals and Milestones seems to be wrong. Should it
not read 1996 instead of 1995 in all other occurrings except
Dallas meeting (Dec 95).