Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90

["Burleigh, Scott C (312G)" <[e-mail]>]

Marc, certainly you are correct that taking both paths concurrently would amount to twice as much work, more or less.  But we are all individuals, all free agents (modulo the interests of our funding sources, for those of us whose participation is funded).  It's not as if there is a common pool of people bandwidth that we can direct to work on one project or another: those of us who are interested in one of these projects will work on it, and those who are not probably won't.  I don't think excluding one of them would much improve the effort that gets devoted to the other; rather, I think including both could accomplish more in total.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 1:17 PM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (312G)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90

Le 2014-05-05 à 12:52, Burleigh, Scott C (312G) <[e-mail]> a écrit :

> How about doing both?
> 
> My understanding of Boeing's interest is that they are looking for standards to support fairly near-term commercialization of the RFC 5050-based technology that we've all gotten a good deal of experience with over the past few years.  In that context, "fix 5050/BP" seems like a good fit for the proposed working group.
> 
> At the same time, taking up the last decade's worth of insight and knowledge and starting over again from a blank sheet of paper seems like exactly the right sort of thing for the DTN Research Group to take on.

on "paper", I agree. But I have concerns on people bandwidth to work in two working groups. Even the current one has not met for quite some time. So instead of starting 2, we may want to try to just (re-)start one...

Marc.

> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn-interest [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
> Kevin Fall
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:03 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
> 
> I can see a couple of ways you might go forward.  If you start off as a "fix 5050/BP" you will encounter disagreement as to what are problems and what are not.  This is evident from the various exchanges over the years.  Alternatively, you can start somewhat higher level with the notion that the area of challenged/DTN/DIL networks is to be addressed with a standard protocol (set), that there is now sufficient insight and knowledge thanks to DTNRG, and the field is open.  There may be different design goals potentially (e.g., some web compatibility or whatnot) which was/were not a particular driving goal for DTNRG or BP.
> 
> - Kevin
> 
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi Lloyd,
>> 
>> I have to say that I mostly agree with Stephen. IMHO, "Bundle of Problems"
>> is a very useful document and still applies today, but I see it as an 
>> actionable problem statement and not an end-of-the-road pronouncement.
>> I believe most of the BoP problems can be addressed in an 
>> RFC5050(bis) and we would tackle this in the initial working group work items.
>> 
>> Thanks - Fred
>> [e-mail]
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dtn-interest [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
>>> Of [e-mail]
>>> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:13 AM
>>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
>>> 
>>> Stephen,
>>> 
>>> I would discourage others from using or building on RFC5050, based 
>>> on our experience in testing the Bundle Protocol in space [1], 
>>> analysing the protocol's failings [2], and a variety of previously 
>>> suggested fixes and drafts in this RG that never went anywhere, 
>>> which aren't published.
>>> 
>>> That's our engineering judgement on RFC5050 as it stands, and many 
>>> long-time readers will be familiar with our arguments.
>>> But, as far as discussing the proposed WG and a modified RFC5050bis
>>> goes:
>>> 
>>> Any protocol is simply an artefact that is an outcome of a process by people.
>>> It's reasonable to have doubts about the same pool of people 
>>> producing anything better in a similar process. If there's a new 
>>> crowd from Boeing et al with relevant expertise and funding/resources/time, that may help.
>>> (Or not, depending on the learning curve.)
>>> 
>>> Will the putative IETF WG be as wholly focused on, say, security?
>>> I don't see how having a set of milestones magically fixes things 
>>> that years in this research group, with discussion between the 
>>> interested, did not. I don't see how an RG with failing output and 
>>> limited adoption can be transformed into a WG with successful output 
>>> and widespread (even
>>> terrestrial?) adoption, and I have never seen that done.
>>> (RGs have transformed and mutated into other RGs, with rather 
>>> varying
>>> success.)
>>> 
>>> How can a WG with the mandate 'fix the bundle protocol' succeed?
>>> Is it just being set up to fail? Should it therefore not be set up at all?
>>> 
>>> [1] Will Ivancic, Wesley M. Eddy, Dave Stewart, Lloyd Wood, James 
>>> Northam and Chris Jackson, 'Experience with delay-tolerant 
>>> networking from orbit', peer-reviewed journal paper, International 
>>> Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking, special issue 
>>> for best papers of the Fourth Advanced Satellite Mobile Systems 
>>> Conference (ASMS 2008), vol. 28, issues 5-6, pp. 335-351, September-December 2010.
>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sat.966
>>> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/ijscn-a
>>> s
>>> ms-bundle-paper-submitted.pdf
>>> 
>>> [2] Lloyd Wood, Wesley M. Eddy and Peter Holliday, 'A Bundle of 
>>> Problems', peer-reviewed conference paper, IEEE Aerospace 
>>> Conference, Big Sky, Montana, March 2009.  16 pages.
>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839384
>>> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/wood-ie
>>> e
>>> e-aerospace-2009-bundle-
>>> problems.pdf
>>> 
>>> Lloyd Wood
>>> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn
>>> 
>>> that was a Star Wars reference, btw. May the 4th: may the force...
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>>> Sent: Monday, 5 May 2014 1:46 AM
>>> To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng); [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
>>> 
>>> Lloyd,
>>> 
>>> On 04/05/14 09:19, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>> I have a bad feeling about this.
>>> 
>>> FWIW, my impression is that you'd have a bad feeling about anything 
>>> related to rfc5050 regardless. IMO, it'd be quite reasonable for 
>>> people to disregard quite a bit of what you say on that basis, i.e.
>>> that you appear to be interested in being destructively critical. 
>>> That's a pity, since there are things to be improved/fixed for which 
>>> you have argued, and with which others agree.
>>> 
>>> Its even more a pity as it somewhat poisons the discussion, so I'd 
>>> ask that if you can, please you try to put aside your distaste for
>>> rfc5050 and your annoyance at dtnrg history and try constructively 
>>> discuss the proposed IETF wg.
>>> 
>>> S.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dtn-interest mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtn-interest mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest