Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90

[ccaini <[e-mail]>]

Dear Fred,
      if the vitality of a research group is denoted by the number of mail
exchanges on the group mailing list, I would say that your proposal has
really brought new life to it!
I am grateful for this.
In my opinion, it was high time that somebody proposed to move DTN BP from
pure research to engineering standardization also for non Interplanetary
applications.
I say this not because I think that BP is perfect and there is no need to
further research, or just to include some of the features that at present
are lacking in future RFCs (e.g. I am in favor of end-to-end CRC check,
which is one of Wood's favorite arguments, with good reasons), but because
without true applications in mind, without the active participation  of big
companies, like Boeing, the DTN appealing outside of Interplanetary
applications seems to me destined to slowly fade out.
I suppose that the prospect of having a DTN standardized protocol
supported by a big company can help in sustaining and rising the interest
of Industry on DTN, which is essential to develop applications that are not
just mere demos; applications that can show all the potential of the DTN
concept and that can make the difference with present ones. This would also
help in keeping alive and possibly reinvigorating DTN more open research
too.
Of course, IETF standardizations should be coordinated with CCSDS
standardization for space applications, in order to maintain a unique DTN
umbrella for both (i.e. some form of close interoperability).
 
Yours,
    Carlo Caini 

(University of Bologna)





On Tue, 6 May 2014 15:30:00 +0000, "Mehta, Devanshu - 0665 - MITLL"
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> In fact, a "blank sheet" dtnrg may reinvigorate some of the more silent
> members of the group.
> 
> Devanshu
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Burleigh, Scott C (312G) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 08:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
> To: Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
> 
> Marc, certainly you are correct that taking both paths concurrently
would
> amount to twice as much work, more or less.  But we are all individuals,
> all free agents (modulo the interests of our funding sources, for those
of
> us whose participation is funded).  It's not as if there is a common
pool
> of people bandwidth that we can direct to work on one project or
another:
> those of us who are interested in one of these projects will work on it,
> and those who are not probably won't.  I don't think excluding one of
them
> would much improve the effort that gets devoted to the other; rather, I
> think including both could accomplish more in total.
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Blanchet [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 1:17 PM
> To: Burleigh, Scott C (312G)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
> 
> Le 2014-05-05 à 12:52, Burleigh, Scott C (312G)
> <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
>> How about doing both?
>> 
>> My understanding of Boeing's interest is that they are looking for
>> standards to support fairly near-term commercialization of the RFC
>> 5050-based technology that we've all gotten a good deal of experience
>> with over the past few years.  In that context, "fix 5050/BP" seems
like
>> a good fit for the proposed working group.
>> 
>> At the same time, taking up the last decade's worth of insight and
>> knowledge and starting over again from a blank sheet of paper seems
like
>> exactly the right sort of thing for the DTN Research Group to take on.
> 
> on "paper", I agree. But I have concerns on people bandwidth to work in
> two working groups. Even the current one has not met for quite some
time.
> So instead of starting 2, we may want to try to just (re-)start one...
> 
> Marc.
> 
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dtn-interest [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
>> Kevin Fall
>> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:03 PM
>> To: Templin, Fred L
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
>> 
>> I can see a couple of ways you might go forward.  If you start off as a
>> "fix 5050/BP" you will encounter disagreement as to what are problems
and
>> what are not.  This is evident from the various exchanges over the
years.
>> Alternatively, you can start somewhat higher level with the notion that
>> the area of challenged/DTN/DIL networks is to be addressed with a
>> standard protocol (set), that there is now sufficient insight and
>> knowledge thanks to DTNRG, and the field is open.  There may be
different
>> design goals potentially (e.g., some web compatibility or whatnot)
which
>> was/were not a particular driving goal for DTNRG or BP.
>> 
>> - Kevin
>> 
>> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Templin, Fred L
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi Lloyd,
>>> 
>>> I have to say that I mostly agree with Stephen. IMHO, "Bundle of
>>> Problems"
>>> is a very useful document and still applies today, but I see it as an 
>>> actionable problem statement and not an end-of-the-road pronouncement.
>>> I believe most of the BoP problems can be addressed in an 
>>> RFC5050(bis) and we would tackle this in the initial working group
work
>>> items.
>>> 
>>> Thanks - Fred
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: dtn-interest [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
>>>> Of [e-mail]
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:13 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
>>>> 
>>>> Stephen,
>>>> 
>>>> I would discourage others from using or building on RFC5050, based 
>>>> on our experience in testing the Bundle Protocol in space [1], 
>>>> analysing the protocol's failings [2], and a variety of previously 
>>>> suggested fixes and drafts in this RG that never went anywhere, 
>>>> which aren't published.
>>>> 
>>>> That's our engineering judgement on RFC5050 as it stands, and many 
>>>> long-time readers will be familiar with our arguments.
>>>> But, as far as discussing the proposed WG and a modified RFC5050bis
>>>> goes:
>>>> 
>>>> Any protocol is simply an artefact that is an outcome of a process by
>>>> people.
>>>> It's reasonable to have doubts about the same pool of people 
>>>> producing anything better in a similar process. If there's a new 
>>>> crowd from Boeing et al with relevant expertise and
>>>> funding/resources/time, that may help.
>>>> (Or not, depending on the learning curve.)
>>>> 
>>>> Will the putative IETF WG be as wholly focused on, say, security?
>>>> I don't see how having a set of milestones magically fixes things 
>>>> that years in this research group, with discussion between the 
>>>> interested, did not. I don't see how an RG with failing output and 
>>>> limited adoption can be transformed into a WG with successful output 
>>>> and widespread (even
>>>> terrestrial?) adoption, and I have never seen that done.
>>>> (RGs have transformed and mutated into other RGs, with rather 
>>>> varying
>>>> success.)
>>>> 
>>>> How can a WG with the mandate 'fix the bundle protocol' succeed?
>>>> Is it just being set up to fail? Should it therefore not be set up at
>>>> all?
>>>> 
>>>> [1] Will Ivancic, Wesley M. Eddy, Dave Stewart, Lloyd Wood, James 
>>>> Northam and Chris Jackson, 'Experience with delay-tolerant 
>>>> networking from orbit', peer-reviewed journal paper, International 
>>>> Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking, special issue 
>>>> for best papers of the Fourth Advanced Satellite Mobile Systems 
>>>> Conference (ASMS 2008), vol. 28, issues 5-6, pp. 335-351,
>>>> September-December 2010.
>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sat.966
>>>> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/ijscn-a
>>>> s
>>>> ms-bundle-paper-submitted.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> [2] Lloyd Wood, Wesley M. Eddy and Peter Holliday, 'A Bundle of 
>>>> Problems', peer-reviewed conference paper, IEEE Aerospace 
>>>> Conference, Big Sky, Montana, March 2009.  16 pages.
>>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839384
>>>> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/wood-ie
>>>> e
>>>> e-aerospace-2009-bundle-
>>>> problems.pdf
>>>> 
>>>> Lloyd Wood
>>>> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn
>>>> 
>>>> that was a Star Wars reference, btw. May the 4th: may the force...
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: Monday, 5 May 2014 1:46 AM
>>>> To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng); [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
>>>> 
>>>> Lloyd,
>>>> 
>>>> On 04/05/14 09:19, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>> I have a bad feeling about this.
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, my impression is that you'd have a bad feeling about anything 
>>>> related to rfc5050 regardless. IMO, it'd be quite reasonable for 
>>>> people to disregard quite a bit of what you say on that basis, i.e.
>>>> that you appear to be interested in being destructively critical. 
>>>> That's a pity, since there are things to be improved/fixed for which 
>>>> you have argued, and with which others agree.
>>>> 
>>>> Its even more a pity as it somewhat poisons the discussion, so I'd 
>>>> ask that if you can, please you try to put aside your distaste for
>>>> rfc5050 and your annoyance at dtnrg history and try constructively 
>>>> discuss the proposed IETF wg.
>>>> 
>>>> S.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dtn-interest mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dtn-interest mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtn-interest mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtn-interest mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest