OK, fellow authors -
There was just a conference call between the MANET chairs and the AD
(Alvaro). In that discussion, the following was decided:
1. There will be NO MANET meeting in Buenos Aries. Any get-together will be
ad-hoc (sorry, I couldn't resist), and would be pretty informal.
2. With respect to AODVv2 - Justin committed to getting us a review of the
-13 document. The issues he mentioned that are outstanding are:
o The Routing Loop discussion - I thought we had concluded there are
no loops. Has that been communicated on manet@xxxxxxxx?
o Security Considerations text - We know about that one, there are
discussions ongoing. Let's move the bulk of those discussion on to
manet@xxxxxxxx to show progress (or at least intensity).
o Multiple IP addresses assigned to one interface. Again, I thought
we'd discussed, but I can't remember the outcome (and my apologies for that
- I've not mastered digging through a Gmail archive well enough to find
it).
In sum, we're now on a 2-3 week trigger.
The conclusion of the conference call was that a review would either point
out that we're pretty close, needing some resolution on the 3 items above,
or the document is still "pretty far out", and therefore the WG needs to
take action. The only actions listed as possible are:
1. Publish the document
2. Abandon the document, and allow the authors (if they wish) to seek an
individual submission.
3. Close the WG (yes, it's a real possibility).
A disposition (publish or perish) MUST MUST MUST be made on AODVv2 within
the 2-3 week time frame. We will *NOT* be allowed to continue on with this
hanging, and it is the prime reason that the request for a WG meeting in
Buenos Aries was denied by the AD.
We also CANNOT recharter the working group without disposition, as we
appear to be a totally dysfunctional WG looking for more issues to blather
over, confuse ourselves with, politicize, argue and scuffle over, and
generally "play around at" without reaching a conclusion.
Once you read the above, and get over hyperventilating, I want to say - I
think you all have tried to do your technical best, and attempted to work
through some contentious issues. We've come a long way - just not far
enough, at least as of yet. The whole issue of a reactive protocol was
politicized, and became a personal, nasty battle full of egos and insults -
ad hominem at it's lowest. There are *NO* technical reasons why a reactive
protocol can't be standardized - the issue *TOTALLY* revolves around the
political/personal aspects of the process. It's sad. I want this document
to be published, and for us to be able to move on. I especially want to
thank Vicky and Lotte for their tireless work on the doc, and for the
progress made. If the decision is to abandon the document, PLEASE don't let
that get to you - you both are victims of a ego-infested swamp that was
created long before you came on-scene. Your effort to-date in attempting to
drain that swamp & kill the alligators lurking therein has been nothing
short of stellar. I say to you both - Bravo.
Let's see what the review shows.
Regards,
Stan
