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

[Gelard Patrick <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

>> Rediscovering the ramifications of the end-to-end principle cannot really be considered research at this point
Is it a rediscovering of end-to-end principle variant or the need of new definition of end-to-end concept to take in account new Delay and  Disruption constraint ?

Is that Delay-  and  Disruption-Tolerant  Networking can continue to be base on the principle of « Intelligence is at the end » : Network architecture must be as simple as possible – don’t bring in infrastructure specific optimizations for any particular purpose ? A "dumb" network with "smart" terminals ?

Modern physic try to build « A theory of everything » to take in account major unsolved problems in physics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics>. What are the major unsolved problem in Networking ?

Bests regard
Patrick
end-to-end principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle


De : dtn-interest [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de [e-mail]
Envoyé : mercredi 7 mai 2014 05:56
À : [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90


"Although DTN has clearly research issues to be addressed"



I wouldn't describe these as research issues, but as basic engineering issues. Rediscovering the ramifications of the end-to-end principle cannot really be considered research at this point.



"optimizing DTN for terrestrial or space environment only may cancel the original concept of interoperability of diverse environments."



We have previously asked whether interoperability of diverse environments is warranted and worthwhile:

Lloyd Wood, Peter Holliday, Daniel Floreani and Wesley M. Eddy,

'Sharing the dream: The consensual networking hallucination offered

by the Bundle Protocol', peer-reviewed conference paper, Workshop on

the Emergence of Delay-/Disruption-Tolerant Networks (E-DTN),

part of the International Conference on Ultra Modern Telecommunication

(ICUMT), St. Petersburg, Russia, 14 October 2009.  2 pages.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICUMT.2009.5345655
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/index.html#e-dtn-position

figure 1 is particularly helpful in thinking about this dichotomy of environments.
Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________
From: dtn-interest <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Vassilios Tsaoussidis <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May 2014 11:47 AM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90


I am also in favor of Fred's proposal. Although DTN has clearly research issues to be addressed, the level of maturity of BP along with the community's clear direction towards internet for everywhere, everything and everyone calls for IETF standardization actions. I am also in favor of forming a single group - to which I intend to participate; dichotomies typically cause more problems than they solve. Also, optimizing DTN for terrestrial or space environment only may cancel the original concept of interoperability of diverse environments.



Vassilis Tsaoussidis




Στις 2014-05-07 03:18, ccaini έγραψε:

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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 08:00 PM Eastern Standard Time To: Marc Blanchet <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 1:17 PM To: Burleigh, Scott C (312G) Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90 Le 2014-05-05 à 12:52, Burleigh, Scott C (312G) <[e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Kevin Fall Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:03 PM To: Templin, Fred L Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
-----Original Message----- From: dtn-interest [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:13 AM To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Sent: Monday, 5 May 2014 1:46 AM To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90 Lloyd, On 04/05/14 09:19, [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
_______________________________________________ dtn-interest mailing list [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
_______________________________________________ dtn-interest mailing list [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest _______________________________________________ dtn-interest mailing list [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
_______________________________________________ dtn-interest mailing list [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest _______________________________________________ dtn-interest mailing list [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest

_______________________________________________

dtn-interest mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest