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