IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] RFC 5050 revision?

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> Sun, 20 May 2012 08:30 UTC

Return-Path: <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21BA21F8474 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 01:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JsbAVDqDXhLu for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 May 2012 01:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA6B21F8472 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Sun, 20 May 2012 01:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.245.230.131:10019] by server-8.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id 06/77-24428-29BA8BF4; Sun, 20 May 2012 08:30:10 +0000
X-Env-Sender: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-78.messagelabs.com!1337502610!29409778!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.35]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.10; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 6683 invoked from network); 20 May 2012 08:30:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.35) by server-10.tower-78.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 20 May 2012 08:30:10 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.156]) by EXHT021P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.35]) with mapi; Sun, 20 May 2012 09:30:07 +0100
From: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, dtn-interest@irtf.org
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 09:30:05 +0100
Thread-Topic: [dtn-interest] RFC 5050 revision?
Thread-Index: Ac0y1YdiRHea7HrYQLijHO3m8hdNIADirZKn
Message-ID: <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37341C5B16AE7@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <4FB2B614.1090303@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4FB2B614.1090303@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] RFC 5050 revision?
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 08:30:13 -0000

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.

To consider CoAP or SPDY or websockets in dtns, it is necessary to consider how HTTP - which CoAP, SPDY and websockets are based on - fits into dtns. And since HTTP assumes full path connectivity between the endpoints, and dtns don't have that, it's not as easy as one might think...

Fortunately, that consideration and mapping HTTP to dtns has already been thought out, and has been previously presented to the group:
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn/http-dtn
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email