Re: [dtn-interest] Meeting frequency

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

On 16 Sep 2008, at 15:29, Symington, Susan F. wrote:

> This is a good list. Thanks for putting it together. I have a few  
> changes:
>
> 1.       I agree with Rajesh that it’s probably better to move the  
> metadata block to the generic category. Also, just a few hours  
> before you sent this list out I happened to update two of the I-Ds.  
> One of them was the metadata block. It now has a September 2008  
> date, and is called “draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-metadata-block-00”.  
> (You can already see that keeping this document up-to-date is going  
> to be a steady job.)

I suggest simply skipping including -nn in the body of the doc and  
just insert urls of the form:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wood-dtnrg-saratoga

which provide a history. A full reference section can provide the  
detailed -nn info, names, dates etc - useful as a snapshot of a point  
in time when the doc was rendered to text and submitted (especially if  
there are later major changes to docs lineage, adoption by the group  
etc.), but not as immediately useful as the urls above for figuring  
out what doc is being talked about.

An 'expired/historical docs' section would also be useful to indicate  
what docs don't need to be looked at, and why - per Susan's point 2  
below. e.g the eddy checksum drafts have been superseded by the irtf  
draft, etc.

L.

> 2.       I would delete the draft that you have listed in the  
> Multicast Extensions category and replace it with the following  
> draft: draft-symington-dtnrg-bundle-multicast-custodial-04 (May  
> 2008). The I-D that you have listed (noncustodial multicast) was  
> abandoned as unnecessary when we ensured that the Bundle Protocol  
> spec itself  supports non-custodial multicasting. You should  
> probably call the Multicast Extensions category the “Custodial  
> Multicast Extensions” category, since the draft that I’m asking you  
> to put in there is specifically for custodial multicast. Right now,  
> the Bundle Protocol Spec supports non-custodial multicast as is,  
> without requiring any extensions.
> 3.       There is one I-D missing: draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-previous- 
> hop-block-04 (September 2008). This should probably go in the  
> generic category, though some might argue for it to go in the  
> routing category. Basically, it is the block that enables a bundle  
> protocol agent to learn the endpoint ID of the bundle protocol agent  
> that forwarded the bundle to it. An obvious use of this block is to  
> support flood routing, to ensure that a bundle is not forwarded back  
> out to the bundle protocol agent from which it was received.  
> However, I imagine that there may be non-routing uses of this block.
>
> Thanks again. This document tree will be very helpful, not only for  
> new people but for all of us to keep track.
>
> -susan
> *****************************************************************
> Susan Symington
> The MITRE Corporation
> [e-mail]
> 703-983-7209 (voice)
> 703-983-7142 (fax)
> ******************************************************************
> From: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2008 8:33 PM
> To: Stephen Farrell
> Cc: Symington, Susan F.; Lloyd Wood; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] Meeting frequency
>
> Here's a first cut at a draft; it may be missing a couple docs  
> still, so clue me in if I've forgotten anything.
>
>
> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Fri 9/12/2008 1:35 PM
> To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]
> Cc: Symington, Susan F.; Lloyd Wood; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] Meeting frequency
>
> Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ] wrote:
>
> > In addition to the longer meeting, I think some kind of a "roadmap"
> > document that simply explains all the DTNRG documents and how they
> > fit together would help us target the important pieces to push
> > forward with.  There's definitely a dependency graph starting to
> > form between documents.  "Roadmap" is probably not the best word,
> > but it's what we used for the same kind of document on TCP (RFC
> > 4614); if there's a better name, let's use that :).  I think this
> > is an essential document as more people are coming into DTN work
> > and need to grasp the pieces of activity and how they relate.
>
> Obvious question:-) Was that you volunteering?
>
> While I agree with you that that'd be useful, esp. for new
> folks, right now I think I'd still emphasise the need to
> finish up some of the docs we've currently under way. But,
> if you've time to knock out an I-D, by all means do!
>
> S.
>

DTN work: http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/saratoga/

<http://info.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><[e-mail]>