IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] Question Regarding Custodial Transfer

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Mon, 16 July 2012 07:44 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 2CC4A21F8604 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Z54G0d+4ce1J for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail72.messagelabs.com (mail72.messagelabs.com [193.109.255.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1670F21F85FF for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 00:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-72.messagelabs.com!1342424704!11809432!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.31]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.10; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 9952 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2012 07:45:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO EXHT011P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.31) by server-5.tower-72.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Jul 2012 07:45:04 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.156]) by EXHT011P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.31]) with mapi; Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:45:03 +0100
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:45:02 +0100
Thread-Topic: [dtn-interest] Question Regarding Custodial Transfer
Thread-Index: Ac1g9IE2qVEAQ9MVSZqnIpgochd7WACMV8z4
Message-ID: <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37341C5B16BD2@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <CAKovV0yaS7cjJ+JdEKs3SNpaX5FCp5-Oiss0aFpWG=R0BaYS1g@mail.gmail.com> <4FFEA38E.3010804@bbn.com> <42CAC1E3-7480-4C39-81C5-1E5504FEC8C5@nasa.gov> <CAKovV0zzvB8NR1TKR96GBvrLWvJBzed8nEvoz_mBaigD-P==2A@mail.gmail.com> <4FFFF4EF.70107@cs.tcd.ie> <21CA76F9-3CB6-487C-81C6-BA3ED4F1B8FA@surrey.ac.uk>, <500016EC.9020400@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <500016EC.9020400@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
Cc: dtn-interest@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Question Regarding Custodial Transfer
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: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:44:24 -0000

> On 07/13/2012 01:23 PM, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> (Stephen: your IMO is trolling, not leadership - imo.
> 
> Well, I guess I was taking a bit of a dig to be fair.
> Apologies for any upset. OTOH, that is in the spirit of
> the text to which I was referring, so could also be
> considered fair;-)

Have you actually read
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-checksum
? (recently?) Some tutorial content seemed unavoidable,
given the intended audience.

>>  It would be a little late now for constructive edits, though.)
>
> Not if there's interest and energy, but I guess we'll
> see what comes out of the meeting later this month.

Perhaps the energy could be increased by appointing a fourth chair?


> One of the things we want to figure out there is which,
> if any, drafts are worth resurrecting. Might be that a
> way to handle that is to limit the number to just a few
> so we can be a bit more confident that they'll get done
> and not just languish, which has happened too often. But
> that's a general point, not specific to your draft, e.g.
> as you mentioned, the TCP CL one in particular would be
> great to get done since its widely used. ("Widely"
> meaning for an IRTF research group.)

...that isn't HIPRG.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email