[dtn-interest] Advancing the LTP documents

[Kevin Fall <[e-mail]>]

Hi Aaron, IRSG, and DTNRG--

In accordance with current IRTF RFC processes, three of the
LTP-related documents [1-3] have now finished IRSG review
and are ready for you to send to the RFC editor.  Documents [1-2]
are intended as Experimental RFCs, and document [3] is intended
as an Informational RFC.

The respective tracker tickets [4-6] for these docs have links
to the various stages of the review.  In particular, the
"Attachments" section in each ticket contains text files with
pointers to and/or specific review comments that came up
during either RG or IRSG review.

Brief of discussion items by doc:

[base]:
	- concern about non-congestion-controlled LTP protocol
	  running atop UDP could be bad for the Internet.  Document
	  now specifies LTP is designed for private links

	- LTP does not provide flow control.  The consequence
	  of using lower-layer "link queues" is discussed in the
	  spec

	- LTP has "red" and "green" color segments that refer
	  to whether reliability is provided or not.  There was
	  some confusion as to whether network-induced re-ordering
	  between red/green segments was a problem.  [its not]

[extensions]:

	- the extensions are really only security-related, so
	  the title now reflects this fact

[motivation]:

	- some concern about the number of timers required, clarified
	  by a message on 2/7/07 as not being so huge

I'll be shepherd for these documents.

Regards,
Kevin.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-09.txt
[2] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-extensions-07.txt
[3] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-irtf-dtnrg-ltp-motivation-06.txt

[4] http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/21
[5] http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/22
[6] http://www3.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/23