[dtn-interest] RFC 5050 revision?

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

As Joerg noted we're interested in whether or not,
and if so how, folks would like to do some work on an
update or revision for RFC 5050, or ideas for
alternatives to the BP or additional DTN protocols.

Things we're interested in hearing about, are:

- Should we rev 5050? why? why not?
- What do you not like about 5050? how'd you fix that?
- What is missing from 5050? how'd you add that?
- What's great about 5050? why'd you keep that?
- What 2119 MUST/SHOULD/MAY would you change and why?
- What DTN research questions would you like to tackle
  where RFC 5050 (or implementations thereof) are
  a barrier?

In addition, we'd be interested in hearing whether
folks would like to explore doing DTN based not on
a straight revision of the BP, but maybe e.g. based
on CoAP, SPDY, websockets, or other protocols.

Or, if you've something else to say/suggest, fo
ahead and do that too.

At this point the goal is to gather and discuss
ideas on the list, with a view to seeing what's of
interest to RG participants.

If we get a bunch of ideas, then we'll try to
organise those a bit and start separate threads.
For now, if you can respond to this mail, that'll
help us track the discussion later.

Later on, the question of who's actually willing to
do stuff will get more interesting, since that's how
things get done - just saying that it "must be so"
is frequently trumped by the fact that someone else
has the energy to actually do something.

Lastly, none of this means that there's anything
wrong with RFC 5050 which has been great for both
doing DTN experiments and for the CCSDS folks who're
building on it for their work. (And in case CCSDS
people get process-scared, no, nothing will ever
change the existing RFCs, so documents referring
to them are unaffected.)

Cheers,
Stephen, Kevin, Joerg.