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

Hi Will,

Technologies for remote participation have become quite good, and are
being used more and more in IETF working group meetings. I don't see
why we couldn't accommodate remote participation in an initial BoF,
for example.

About your other points, additional work items can be tracked by
the working group and brought in during a recharter. But, without
an initial charter, that ball will never get rolling.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn-interest [mailto:dtn-interest-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 7:44 AM
> To: Daniel Ellard; dtn-interest@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
> 
> I would certainly agree. And, that probably would be a good measure of the
> true ability to commit to do work.  I know, I currently have no funding to
> travel.  If such meetings do occur, it would sure be nice to be able to
> participate remotely via some type of web meeting application.
> 
> One of the questions that keeps crossing my mind the past week or two
> while watching the discussion / arguments and whatever is: "Why hasn't
> this issue been resolved in the research group?"
> 
> Things like head-of-line blocking, scalable routing, reactive
> fragmentation,  what should be secure, etc....  There are a lot of open
> issues.  And that doesn't include route loops and the ability to have a
> bundle stuck in a route loop terminate.  Bundle lifetime will not
> adequately handle this.
> 
> If I were an AD or IESG, this would certainly play into my decision to
> allow a working group to form.
> 
> Will
> 
> ******************************
> William D. Ivancic
> Phone 216-433-3494
> Fax 216-433-8705
> Networking Lab 216-433-2620
> Mobile 440-503-4892
> http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/5/14 9:37 AM, "Daniel Ellard" <dellard@bbn.com> wrote:
> 
> >Independent of the RG/WG question, I think it might be useful to
> >have more face-to-face meetings, or at least regular telecons.
> >Maybe having WG meetings at the IETF meetings would help, but I
> >don't think it's a prerequisite.
> >
> >In my experience, email threads often devolve into discussions of
> >all the ways we don't agree, while realtime or face-to-face
> >discussions are more productive in building consensus for things on
> >which we do agree (or at least agree to disagree and move on).
> >
> >-Dan
> >
> >--
> >Daniel Ellard, Ph.D.
> >Senior Scientist, Network Research
> >Raytheon BBN Technologies
> >dellard@bbn.com
> >617-873-8004
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >dtn-interest mailing list
> >dtn-interest@irtf.org
> >https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> dtn-interest@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest