Re: [dtn-interest] DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea

Lloyd,

a number of things have evolved with the Bundle protocol since 2008. Among
them, the ones resulting from direct experience with live testing strike me
as the most valuable.

v

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:21 PM, <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Vint,
>
>
>  not participating in the DTN effort was a suggestion you made when we
>
> discussed the Bundle Protocol while walking around the golf course at
>
> IETF Dublin in July 2008, after I raised concerns about the Bundle
>
> Protocol work being rushed and not being technically sufficient.
>
>
>  Since that conversation, we have done the first in-space tests of bundle
> use
>
> from the UK-DMC satellite, we wrote the "A Bundle of Problems" paper that
>
> has belatedly been recognised as identifying problems with the Bundle
>
> Protocol... Those and other contributions would simply not have
>
> happened had I followed your suggestion then.
>
>
>  In hindsight, do you think that was a good suggestion?
>
>
>   Lloyd Wood
> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, 19 July 2014 10:29 PM
> *To:* Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
> *Cc:* dtn@ietf.org; dtn-interest; IAB IAB; IETF-Discussion list; IESG
>
> *Subject:* Re: [dtn-interest] DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea
>
>  ok, you don't need to participate in the WG if it is formed, Lloyd.
>
>  vint
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:28 PM, <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'm not going to be attending the DTNWG BOF remotely, as it's
>> at 2am my local time - but I'd just like to point out, as I said in
>>
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn/current/msg00026.html
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn/current/msg00054.html
>>
>> that I think that having an IETF workgroup push the technically
>> flawed Bundle Protocol through on standards track, after years
>> of poor development and unfixed problems across two IRTF research
>> groups, is a really terribly bad idea that does not benefit the IETF
>> community, and does not benefit work on delay-tolerant networking
>> or ad-hoc networking in general.
>>
>> So, I am not in favour of the proposed DTNWG being formed.
>>
>> Enjoy Toronto.
>>
>> Lloyd Wood
>> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn
>> _______________________________________________
>> dtn-interest mailing list
>> dtn-interest@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>>
>
>