Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG energy levels?

I agree on both points.  There are plenty of DTN concepts that merit additional research, but for now there's not enough energy to pursue them.  If possible, I think we should retain not only the dtn-interest mailing list but also dtn-users, as this is where DTN2 support questions are addressed.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: dtn-interest [mailto:dtn-interest-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Ott
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 7:13 AM
To: Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>; Kevin Fall <kfall@kfall.com>
Cc: dtn-interest@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG energy levels?

Yes, keeping the list would be useful.

I also agree with Kevin that there would be things to do but this gets us back tot he energy being elsewhere.

Jörg

On 21/03/16 08:27, Vint Cerf wrote:
> i would find it useful to keep the interest list if that's possible 
> and agree the research group can be closed.
>
> v
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Kevin Fall <kfall@kfall.com 
> <mailto:kfall@kfall.com>> wrote:
>
>     I'd say that although there are a couple of items that cold be
>     pursued, there doesn't appear to be the commitment at this time to
>     do so.  Not completely surprising given the presence of the WG now.
>     By way of upshot, I'm ok to move to close it.   Thanks to all who
>     have contributed over the years, its been a pleasure.  FWIW, I think
>     it would be useful to keep the email list around if we are allowed
>     to do so.
>
>     regards,
>     - Kevin
>
>
>
>     On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Farrell
>     <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie <mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>> wrote:
>
>
>
>         On 18/03/16 16:35, Joerg Ott wrote:
>         >
>         > 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.
>
>         I agree with Joerg.
>
>         Cheers,
>         S.
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         dtn-interest mailing list
>         dtn-interest@irtf.org <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
>         https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dtn-interest mailing list
>     dtn-interest@irtf.org <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
>     https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>
>
>
>
> --
> New postal address:
> Google
> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> dtn-interest@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>

_______________________________________________
dtn-interest mailing list
dtn-interest@irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest