IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Tue, 27 May 2014 03:39 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 232411A0356 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:39:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 u2RWF06JZukf for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta14.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta14.messagelabs.com [193.109.254.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C7611A0347 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 20:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [193.109.255.147:49913] by server-7.bemta-14.messagelabs.com id 41/66-17726-3D804835; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:38:59 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-72.messagelabs.com!1401161939!9752001!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.31]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.3; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 24326 invoked from network); 27 May 2014 03:38:59 -0000
Received: from exht011p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT011P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.31) by server-11.tower-72.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 May 2014 03:38:59 -0000
Received: from EXHY012V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) by exht011p.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Tue, 27 May 2014 04:38:58 +0100
Received: from emea01-db3-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; Tue, 27 May 2014 04:38:58 +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 15.0.949.11; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:38:57 +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 15.00.0949.001; Tue, 27 May 2014 03:38:57 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, jo@netlab.tkk.fi, Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com, dtn-interest@irtf.org
Thread-Topic: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
Thread-Index: Ac9iySo5xlgpJHilTK+oiyhvZJ8chwWk7tLV
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 03:38:56 +0000
Message-ID: <1401161936392.43569@surrey.ac.uk>
References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181B28DD43@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <535A954D.6030007@cs.tcd.ie> <535CB9D4.301@netlab.tkk.fi>,<535CFF85.7080804@cs.tcd.ie> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E9989B92@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>, <535D3CAA.5050901@cs.tcd.ie> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F1240847E9989B93@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>, <535E2788.90108@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <535E2788.90108@cs.tcd.ie>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [122.200.59.30]
x-forefront-prvs: 02243C58C6
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(6009001)(428001)(199002)(189002)(4396001)(19580395003)(83322001)(15202345003)(79102001)(76482001)(66066001)(21056001)(77982001)(80022001)(64706001)(20776003)(99396002)(46102001)(15975445006)(92726001)(2201001)(86362001)(92566001)(54356999)(50986999)(87936001)(76176999)(77096999)(74662001)(74502001)(36756003)(2656002)(31966008)(74482001)(101416001)(85852003)(81542001)(81342001)(83072002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB440; H:AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: surrey.ac.uk does not designate permitted sender hosts)
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/K42UZrwPWbIopWxqkXHwBlNAwTs
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
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: Tue, 27 May 2014 03:39:08 -0000

> Yes, starting by looking at approaches like that (though maybe
> considering HTTP/2.0 now as well) is IMO well worth considering
> if we want an eventual IETF PS RFC for DTN to be (able to be)
> widely used.

I think people are starting to realise that a higher version number 
doesn't necessarily mean better.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0815.html

I think HTTP/1.1 has a lot of mileage in it.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email