Re: [dtn-interest] RFC 5050 revision?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 05/20/2012 09:30 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> In addition, we'd be interested in hearing whether
>> folks would like to explore doing DTN based not on
>> a straight revision of the BP, but maybe e.g. based
>> on CoAP, SPDY, websockets, or other protocols.
> 
> Since this group was set up to push and develop only the bundle protocol, the group will probably need to be rechartered to allow this. Non-bundle protocol work has been ignored previously.

I don't think rechartering is a must-do, but I do agree that
if enough people want to do credible DTN work not associated
with the BP then we probably should update the charter text
so the very few people who read the charter [1] don't get
confused.

   [1] http://irtf.org/dtnrg

> To consider CoAP or SPDY or websockets in dtns, it is necessary to consider how HTTP - which CoAP, SPDY and websockets are based on - fits into dtns. And since HTTP assumes full path connectivity between the endpoints, and dtns don't have that, it's not as easy as one might think...
> 
> Fortunately, that consideration and mapping HTTP to dtns has already been thought out, and has been previously presented to the group:
> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn/http-dtn
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery

I agree that if we seriously discuss non-BP things then HTTP
ought be considered.

S.


> 
> 
> 
> 
>