IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dtn-interest] DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Sat, 19 July 2014 03:28 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B96B1A0351 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xyUo136zjx4p for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B811A031D for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.245.230.131:61707] by server-15.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id 84/EF-14271-6C5E9C35; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:28:06 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-78.messagelabs.com!1405740486!35275874!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.43]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.3; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 29695 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2014 03:28:06 -0000
Received: from exht022p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.43) by server-10.tower-78.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 19 Jul 2014 03:28:06 -0000
Received: from EXHY012V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) by EXHT022P.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.342.0; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 04:28:05 +0100
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (131.227.201.241) by EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 04:28:05 +0100
Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.19) by AMSPR06MB440.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.985.8; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:28:05 +0000
Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) by AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) with mapi id 15.00.0985.008; Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:28:04 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: dtn@ietf.org, dtn-interest@irtf.org
Thread-Topic: DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea
Thread-Index: AQHPowDY55A2OgZ/uU+4oNmmB0wn/w==
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:28:03 +0000
Message-ID: <1405740483446.13356@surrey.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [124.169.4.77]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 02778BF158
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(51444003)(189002)(199002)(86362001)(229853001)(50986999)(66066001)(105586002)(15202345003)(95666004)(101416001)(74662001)(54356999)(31966008)(4396001)(76482001)(81542001)(106356001)(79102001)(99396002)(77982001)(83322001)(74502001)(92726001)(46102001)(106116001)(83072002)(107046002)(80022001)(21056001)(85852003)(64706001)(20776003)(85306003)(36756003)(15975445006)(81342001)(92566001)(2656002)(87936001)(19580395003)(74482001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB440; H:AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: AMSPR06MB440.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn-interest/ETtBx5u3Hp7_Lt5m7sRx9n3GtYQ
Cc: iab@iab.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [dtn-interest] DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 03:28:10 -0000

I'm not going to be attending the DTNWG BOF remotely, as it's
at 2am my local time - but I'd just like to point out, as I said in

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn/current/msg00026.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn/current/msg00054.html

that I think that having an IETF workgroup push the technically
flawed Bundle Protocol through on standards track, after years
of poor development and unfixed problems across two IRTF research
groups, is a really terribly bad idea that does not benefit the IETF
community, and does not benefit work on delay-tolerant networking
or ad-hoc networking in general.

So, I am not in favour of the proposed DTNWG being formed.

Enjoy Toronto.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email