Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG energy levels?

Hi.
And in case of a new DTN-related research draft ? It could be submitted
directly to IRTF stream?
Cheers.
Jéferson

Em seg, 21 de mar de 2016 às 12:49, Burleigh, Scott C (312B) <
scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> escreveu:

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