Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG energy levels?

There many reasons to disagree with 'ICN has overtaken DTN' (embraced in
some contexts might be a better way of saying it, and it surely depends
on which ICN flavor you choose).  But that's immaterial considering what 
we observe right now as the energy level.

As we discussed among the chairs and Lars, we should not hang in a limbo
state but rather be (1) or not be (0).  At present, my sense is more on
the 0 side; we also see on the research side that the activity level in
this field has gone down.

I believe that the concepts (and notions of protocol robustness)
discussed in the field (irrespective of the bundle protocol) remain
valid and useful also the Internet at large.  So, we have done our
share and we spawned a working group.  Time to take a break, declare
success, and go home.  As Will put it, perhaps something to return
to in the future.  We'll see.

Jörg

On 18/03/16 16:59, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0) wrote:
> IMHO, ICN has overtaken DTN - particularly since DTNRG was so focused on
> just the Bundling protocol. Perhaps in the future something may return.
> But for now ICN is showing very good potential for store and forward and
> propagation delay is just transport protocol.
>
> Will
>
> On 3/18/16, 11:48 AM, "dtn-interest on behalf of Eggert, Lars"
> <dtn-interest-bounces@irtf.org on behalf of lars@netapp.com> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> since the creation of the DTN WG over in the IETF, the DTNRG has become
>> rather quiet. I don't see a lot of new work being brought in. There also
>> hasn't been a physical meeting in almost two years.
>>
>> I'm wondering if DTN has made the jump from research into engineering,
>> and it's time to close the RG?
>>
>> Lars
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> dtn-interest@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>