Re: [dtn-interest] RFC 5050 revision?

["Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[e-mail]>]

On May 20, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

I think a recharter is necessary to encourage additional thinking in store-carry-and-forward techniques.  The first two paragraphs are more open thinking, but the following two propose a specific solution and appears rather restrictive.

http://irtf.org/dtnrg
"The group intends to build upon the extended “bundling” architecture created originally for the Interplanetary Internet. This architecture proposes an alternative to the Internet TCP/IP end-to-end model and employs hop-by-hop storage and retransmission as a transport-layer overlay. It provides a messaging service interface conceptually similar to electronic mail, but generalized for application-independence and supported by specialized reliability and routing capabilities.

The intended work products of the DTNRG include architectural descriptions (concept documents) a bundling protocol specification, and a series of one or more network-environment-specific “profile” documents. These profile documents will include descriptions of ‘convergence layers’ intended to adapt the overlying messaging architecture for use in specialized networking environments (space, water, sensor networks), and are expected to be created by the study teams described in the Membership section below. One study team output will be an “Internet profile” document, developed in concert with the architectural and protocol specification documents, giving suggested naming conventions and protocols to use for transport within the public Internet."

- Will