Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check

"Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov> Thu, 29 July 2010 16:52 UTC

From: "Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov>
To: Daniel Ellard <dellard@bbn.com>, "dtn-interest@maillists.intel-research.net" <dtn-interest@maillists.intel-research.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:52:24 -0500
Thread-Topic: [dtn-interest] Document status check
Thread-Index: AcsvPbXAK3/22JxDSlWr3sTN9LQCfwAABx5A
Message-ID: <7BBFF2424089F04FB7D62F800895E2B629AA43037A@NDJSSCC07.ndc.nasa.gov>
References: <4C519756.1080501@cs.tcd.ie> <4C51AC12.8020508@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C51AC12.8020508@bbn.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check
Precedence: list

I concur for TCP.  

The current UDP Convergence layer is rather limiting but is implemented in most if not all DTN implementations.  I would rather UDP not have all the limitations it does.  A better UDP convergence layer that doesn't limit one to 64kbyte packets would be preferred. 

- Will  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: dtn-interest-bounces@maillists.intel-research.net [mailto:dtn-
>interest-bounces@maillists.intel-research.net] On Behalf Of Daniel
>Ellard
>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:28 PM
>To: dtn-interest@maillists.intel-research.net
>Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check
>
>On 7/29/10 10:59 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As usual, there're a bunch of I-Ds with dtnrg in their
>> name, so I'd just like to get a sense of the state-of-play
>> for these. Feel free to reply to the list, or just Kevin
>> and I.
>>...
>> If you think the draft should live, but no longer have
>> cycles to work on it, then that's interesting too - we
>> may be able to recruit some new authors.
>> ...
>> DTNRG expired:
>>...
>> 19 Nov 2008  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-udp-clayer
>> 03 Nov 2008  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-tcp-clayer
>
>I am not an author or custodian of either of these, but am
>willing to help keep them moving forward.  We (BBN anyway,
>but I suspect nearly everyone else) use these all the time
>and they should be moved forward to RFC status instead of
>just being de facto standards.
>
>-Dan
>
>--
>Daniel Ellard, Ph.D.
>Senior Scientist, Network Research
>BBN Technologies
>10 Moulton Street
>Cambridge, MA 02138
>dellard@bbn.com
>_______________________________________________
>dtn-interest mailing list
>dtn-interest@maillists.intel-research.net
>http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest

Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Hans Kruse
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Burleigh, Scott C (313B)
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Hans Kruse
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Hans Kruse
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Symington, Susan F.
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Michael Demmer
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Joerg Ott
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check L.Wood
Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check Daniel Ellard
[dtn-interest] Document status check Stephen Farrell