Subject: Working Group Issue

From: [email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 19:56:54 -0400

Hello group:

Joel and I recently had the following exchange.  Joel didn't mind that I
post this to the mailing list for the group's benefit.  This should help
everyone get up to speed.

-joe

>Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 16:44:16 -0400
>To: [email-masked]
>From: [email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
>Subject: Working Group Issue
>
>Joel:
>
>After just talking with Charlie Perkins about working group issues, I'd
>like to offer my 2 cents on supporting the notion of trying to make this as
>functional a group as possible.  I realize there is talk of reorganizing
>how IRTF groups function and this may be a viable approach, given some new,
>more meaningful IRTF role, but we do want to meet at IETF conferences and
>push towards an engineered standard.  I do think some protocol approaches
>are more ready than others for engineering.  Thus, reworking a charter
>again may be in order.  Since the BOF, we do have another good potential
>protocol framework to consider in JJ Garcia-L-A's WINGS work.  JJ seems
>excited to work within whatever forum is established. I think this is
>another step forward.
>
>I think the chair position(s) is somewhat TBD, I know Scott and I put
>several names down on the charter since we were the original organizers. 
>If you decide to elect/solicit others, I would like to suggest you try to
>look for a little DIVERSITY in experience, due to the breadth of user
>community requirements in mobile networking.  Also, some person or
>person(s) without a hard stake in a particular solution to sell might be
>wise.  Given my point 2 chairs might make sense. 3 is likely too many.
>
>While we need to be thinking of commercial applications and uses, alot of
>funding and baseline work will likely come out of ongoing DARPA and
>military networking R&D to support this.  The best engineering goal would
>be something both communities can make use of.  We need good, cooperative
>non-legislative technical representation from both communities to make this
>happen.  I think we can do this properly if we proceed carefully.
>
>Also, I hope to provide the slides for the IEEE Comp Comm Workshop on the
>MANet home page once I get submissions from everyone.
>http://tonnant.itd.nrl.navy.mil/manet_home.html
>
>We could get more of this discussion in the open on the mailing list if you
>are willing.  I figured you weren't quite ready for that at this point and
>I didn't want to push it prematurely, but its getting to the point where
>some decision should be made.  An idea: if desired we could organize an
>MBone meeting on the subject amongst interested parties to review where we
>are.
>
>Whew....I know this was long and hope it was useful.
>
>Thanks,
>-joe
>
>
>
>Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 17:00:08 +0500
>From: [email-masked] (Joel Halpern)
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Working Group Issue
>X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>
>Thank you for the note.
>
>I agree with you that if this is a working group, two chairs, with differing
>backgrounds are appropriate.  I also agree that the chair should not be a
>proponent of any particular solution.
>
>One symptom that has contributed to my not feeling that this is ready
>for engineering is the fact that I have not seen ANY discussion of any
>of the proposals on the mailing list.  If there is not sufficient
>community interest and understanding to get discussion going, I tend
>to be doubtful about the overall effort.
>I first noticed this problem with the Nimrod work, which should have been
>research.
>
>At this time, I can see three possibilities:
>1) I charter the working group
>2) The work is considered research, and there is an IRTF RRG meeting at
>   the next IETF
>3) The work is considered research, and in the absence of an RRG I petition
>   for you for an exception to the 2 BoFs rule.
>
>Yours,
>Joel M. Halpern                         [email-masked]
>Newbridge Networks Inc.
>
>
>Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 17:56:26 -0400
>To:[email-masked] (Joel Halpern)
>From:[email-masked] (Joseph P. Macker)
>Subject:Re: Working Group Issue
>
>At  5:00 PM 10/2/96 +0500, Joel Halpern wrote:
>>
>>One symptom that has contributed to my not feeling that this is ready
>>for engineering is the fact that I have not seen ANY discussion of any
>>of the proposals on the mailing list.  If there is not sufficient
>>community interest and understanding to get discussion going, I tend
>>to be doubtful about the overall effort.
>
>I worried that this was the case.  This is probably the interested parties
>fault, including myself, as much as anything.  There has been alot of
>discussion "off" the mailing list.  There have been other open forum
>discussions, witness the recent panel discussion at the IEEE Workshop, the ONR
>Wireless Networks Workshop, and other informal correspondences between a
>number of us.
>
>I guess, since the group had no official standing we all felt there was less
>need for sharing information on the open mailing list.  When an official group
>is established it is my belief this process will change and people will feel
>less hesitant to share technical ideas openly.  In actuality, in being part of
>a real process they will likely open up more.  There are many mobile network
>funding sources and participants will feel pressure to stay involved in a
>standards process for mobile routing support.  I know this case is true with
>several of our likely participants.  I do not think this was true of Nimrod,
>etc.
>
>>I first noticed this problem with the Nimrod work, which should have been
>>research.
>
>I sympathize with your position and nothing is absolute...but please consider
>my rationale above.  I am glad to help however I can.  Your 3 potential
>courses of action are all valid form my perspective, but I worry what a third
>BOF would mean?
>If this happens we ought to decide early to invite people like JJ.  You might
>poll the others on their thoughts.
>
>-joe
>
>
>Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 18:49:50 +0500
>From: [email-masked] (Joel Halpern)
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: Working Group Issue
>X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>
>I do understand that it is important to have the discussion.
>The 3rd BoF would occur if the intention is to have the group within the
>Routing Research activity, but we have not gotten that activity
>organized.  I will talk to other IESG members over the next few
>(small number) of weeks to decide what we ought to do.
>
>Yours,
>Joel
>
>

---

From: Joshua Lamorie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 21:08:06 -0400

Gidday All,

	I am a lurker in the current stages of the BOF/WG/RRG because my
interest lies in the applications of whatever method or combo-method
that comes out.  I am involved
with a large group of Engineering Students who are attempting many
projects based on Internetworking technology.  We are now moving towards
doing some work with wireless, both high-bandwidth fixed link (hacking a
couple of MSAT comm units) and with low-bandwidth mobile links (using 7
old OCI LAWNs for the Link Layer).

> >I first noticed this problem with the Nimrod work, which should have been

	I get the feeling that no-one really wants to let much information out
about their methods, research, .. etc.. but I would like to offer a
dozen or so Linux based hackers with some wireless units to try to
implement any system that is available.

	This offer/request may be premature, but we are not affiliated with any
proposed standard that is currently being discussed on/off the mailing
list, and testing more than one method may be possible.

	Please respond if you think this might be possible, or if you think I
will probably have finished my doctorate before anything happens (I'm in
final year of Bachelor).

	Thanks in advance.

	Joshua