Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose
<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk> Tue, 15 May 2012 19:42 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04DCA11E8099 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 12:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwNHY8gddqdW for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 May 2012 12:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta5.messagelabs.com [195.245.231.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3442D21F8621 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Tue, 15 May 2012 12:42:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [195.245.231.67:41627] by server-7.bemta-5.messagelabs.com id 6A/D9-16195-8B1B2BF4; Tue, 15 May 2012 19:42:48 +0000
X-Env-Sender: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-82.messagelabs.com!1337111066!29306890!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.39]
X-StarScan-Version: 6.5.7; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 13246 invoked from network); 15 May 2012 19:44:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.39) by server-14.tower-82.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 May 2012 19:44:26 -0000
Received: from EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk ([169.254.1.156]) by EXHT012P.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.200.39]) with mapi; Tue, 15 May 2012 20:42:47 +0100
From: L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: jo@netlab.tkk.fi, dtn-interest@irtf.org
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:42:46 +0100
Thread-Topic: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose
Thread-Index: Ac0xQUTx54s8nD0dQLS1wLvjYzYhOgBjTfcL
Message-ID: <FD7B10366AE3794AB1EC5DE97A93A37341C5B16AE2@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk>
References: <4FB00FDF.2090305@netlab.tkk.fi>
In-Reply-To: <4FB00FDF.2090305@netlab.tkk.fi>
Accept-Language: en-US, en-GB
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US, en-GB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 15 May 2012 19:42:55 -0000
If work is to be done on revising RFC5050, addressing these weak points would be a good idea: 1. RFC5050's dependence on clocks; a delay-tolerant protocol that requires synchronised system clocks, and can't tolerate delays between them, has limited application and awkward failure modes. One description of the problem is in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-dtnrg-alt-time-00 2. RFC5050's inability to detect errors in transmission or delivery, even in its own payload headers - a disadvantage in the disrupted, unreliable, networks that RFC5050 is intended for. A description of the problem and proposal to address this is in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-checksum-09 (I see from a garbled note in the minutes of the last IRTF meeting that this was discussed there? http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-dtnrg.txt No idea what was said) There are probably other points on RFC5050 discussed in 'A Bundle of Problems' that will be useful to consider: http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/publications/index.html#bundle-problems http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839384 Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn ________________________________________ From: dtn-interest-bounces@irtf.org [dtn-interest-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Ott [jo@netlab.tkk.fi] Sent: 13 May 2012 20:47 To: dtn-interest@irtf.org Subject: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose Hi, having talked to various people, we feel that there is potential for having another longer DTNRG meeting to make active progress on the specifications. Google has kindly offered to host a meeting on 26/27 July 2012 in San Jose, CA. Time and date are chosen so that the IETF meeting is not too far away. The meeting will run for two full days. One major discussion item will be revising RFC 5050 and related specifications. We have gained lots of experience and have found that some things work better than others. It appears a good point in time to start thinking on how to fold this experience into our specs. We will provide more detailed information about the venue soonish. Please send us private email if you want to attend so that we can get a rough estimate of the group size. Stephen, Kevin, and Jörg _______________________________________________ dtn-interest mailing list dtn-interest@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
- [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose Joerg Ott
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose [Mou… Fall, Kevin
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose [Mou… Vint Cerf
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose L.Wood
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose Marc Blanchet
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose Fall, Kevin
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose Paulo Mendes
- Re: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose Stephen Farrell