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

On 28/04/14 02:15, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>> If I recall correctly though there was something
>> about your http-dtn stuff that I thought just didn't work for
>> some use-cases, but I've not re-read it today, so I think your
>> stuff might or might not be a viable starting point when looked
>> at in detail
> 
> As always, good to get a detailed technical critique from you, Stephen.

Nope, what I was (perhaps badly) trying to say was
just that even if a proposal isn't yet fully baked, it
could be worth a good look, if we go down the road
of making terrestrial deployment a first class goal.

S.

> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood
> ________________________________________
> From: Stephen Farrell [stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> Sent: 27 April 2014 18:21
> To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng); jo@netlab.tkk.fi; Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com; dtn-interest@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
> 
> On 27/04/14 14:40, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>> if you're  enabling a web server for DTN,
>> why use the bundle protocol?
>>
>> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn/http-dtn.html
> 
> 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. If I recall correctly though there was something
> about your http-dtn stuff that I thought just didn't work for
> some use-cases, but I've not re-read it today, so I think your
> stuff might or might not be a viable starting point when looked
> at in detail, But its defo something to look at I'd say if
> we're really prioritising terrestrial deployment.
> 
> I think you and I Lloyd might agree on the above but disagree
> about what to call the result - I'd like that to be done as
> a revision of the BP so as to maintain easy gatewaying with
> 5050 implementations. I suspect you might not be so keen on
> that:-) But I think that compatibility point ought also be
> up for discussion if an IETF WG is being formed.
> 
> All that said, for an IETF WG, it'd matter a lot whether or not
> there's a set of interested enough parties and I could imagine
> that some people would like taking this kind of approach whereas
> others might hate it and want far fewer changes compared to
> 5050, so I think that means that resolving the high level
> direction for a 5050bis is something that should be done before
> forming a WG, so a WG doesn't stall on not being able to get
> consensus on the high level approach. (And that in turn means
> that more folks weighing in on this topic could be very
> helpful.)
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Lloyd Wood
>> http://about.me/lloydwood
>> ________________________________________
>> From: dtn-interest [dtn-interest-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell [stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
>> Sent: 27 April 2014 14:00
>> To: Joerg Ott; Templin, Fred L; dtn-interest@irtf.org
>> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 27/04/14 09:03, Joerg Ott wrote:
>>> While I see Stephen's point on the tooling, I don't agree with
>>> this since tool fashion changes (including the praise for text-based
>>> encoding in the IETF at some layers).  We have built commercial
>>> products for terrestrial use based upon RFC 5050 and, really,
>>> the tool part isn't the problem.  The security part is where
>>> we want to be more sensible towards protocol re-use.
>>
>> Fair point. OTOH, I think its a real fail that one can't
>> e.g. just install an Apache web server module to DTN enable
>> your web proxy or something similar. Having to build an
>> entirely new overlay for 5050 that doesn't re-use anything
>> already deployed makes it much less likely to be used IMO.
>> Actually, that's not just opinion, its based on our
>> experience trying to deploy stuff we've piloted that worked
>> but always seems to be too much trouble for non-subsidised
>> deployments.
>>
>> That is not something that will change just because the
>> RFC is in the IETF stream. But I think we should be able to
>> fix that with a 5050bis while also keeping the ability to
>> gateway to 5050 DTNs.
>>
>> To be clear, I don't want that we aim to DTN-enable the web, I
>> want us to consider terrestrial deployability and making that
>> as easy as possible as first class requirements. If the means
>> to get that were not related to HTTP (though HTTP/2.0 timing
>> might just still be fortuitous here), but say related to
>> some OpenWRT build for homenet, then that'd also be just
>> dandy.
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtn-interest mailing list
>> dtn-interest@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>>
> 