Re: [dtn-interest] Moving I-Ds along or killing 'em...(author response required)

[<[e-mail]>]

> 6. work-in-progress, "accepted" by RG
>
> 14-Nov-2010,draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-checksum

just reissued. Heavily dependent on the draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-security draft; unlikely to move along until that (and its terminology...) is finalized, at which point it moves to 5 last call.


> 14-Nov-2010,draft-wood-dtnrg-saratoga

just reissued. Dependent on draft-wood-tsvwg-saratoga; unlikely to move along until that's finalized, at which point it moves to 5 last call.


> 14-Nov-2010,draft-wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery

just reissued. Given that the Beijing session minutes (and thanks for being timely with those. A welcome surprise.) state that there's interest doing http over bundling - something we looked at internally in quite some detail back in 2008, before entirely discarding several approaches to that and coming up with this draft outlining a better, simpler approach to dealing with http - it may be that the approach in this draft will finally get the attention it deserves, at which point it gets adopted as a research group draft. More at:
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn/http-dtn
Inspection will show that this beats belatedly kludging a MIMEtype into the bundle protocol, trying to map streaming to bundles, etc. 


> 10. Almost certainly dead (just checking)
>
> 14-Aug-2007,draft-eddy-dtnrg-checksum

We reworked the approach in that for the irtf bundle checksum draft, so this one is OBE.

material related to all of these is available at
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn