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

I can see a couple of ways you might go forward.  If you start off as
a "fix 5050/BP" you will encounter disagreement as to what are
problems and what are not.  This is evident from the various exchanges
over the years.  Alternatively, you can start somewhat higher level
with the notion that the area of challenged/DTN/DIL networks is to be
addressed with a standard protocol (set), that there is now sufficient
insight and knowledge thanks to DTNRG, and the field is open.  There
may be different design goals potentially (e.g., some web
compatibility or whatnot) which was/were not a particular driving goal
for DTNRG or BP.

- Kevin

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Templin, Fred L
<Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> Hi Lloyd,
>
> I have to say that I mostly agree with Stephen. IMHO, "Bundle of Problems"
> is a very useful document and still applies today, but I see it as an
> actionable problem statement and not an end-of-the-road pronouncement.
> I believe most of the BoP problems can be addressed in an RFC5050(bis)
> and we would tackle this in the initial working group work items.
>
> Thanks - Fred
> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dtn-interest [mailto:dtn-interest-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
>> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:13 AM
>> To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; dtn-interest@irtf.org
>> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
>>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> I would discourage others from using or building on
>> RFC5050, based on our experience in testing the Bundle
>> Protocol in space [1], analysing the protocol's failings
>> [2], and a variety of previously suggested fixes and drafts
>> in this RG that never went anywhere, which aren't published.
>>
>> That's our engineering judgement on RFC5050 as it stands,
>> and many long-time readers will be familiar with our arguments.
>> But, as far as discussing the proposed WG and a modified
>> RFC5050bis goes:
>>
>> Any protocol is simply an artefact that is an outcome of a process by people.
>> It's reasonable to have doubts about the same pool of people producing anything
>> better in a similar process. If there's a new crowd from Boeing et al with
>> relevant expertise and funding/resources/time, that may help.
>> (Or not, depending on the learning curve.)
>>
>> Will the putative IETF WG be as wholly focused on, say, security?
>> I don't see how having a set of milestones magically fixes things
>> that years in this research group, with discussion between the interested,
>> did not. I don't see how an RG with failing output and limited adoption
>> can be transformed into a WG with successful output and widespread (even
>> terrestrial?) adoption, and I have never seen that done.
>> (RGs have transformed and mutated into other RGs, with rather
>> varying success.)
>>
>> How can a WG with the mandate 'fix the bundle protocol' succeed?
>> Is it just being set up to fail? Should it therefore not be set up at all?
>>
>> [1] Will Ivancic, Wesley M. Eddy, Dave Stewart, Lloyd Wood, James Northam
>> and Chris Jackson, 'Experience with delay-tolerant networking from orbit',
>> peer-reviewed journal paper, International Journal of Satellite
>> Communications and Networking, special issue for best papers of the Fourth
>> Advanced Satellite Mobile Systems Conference (ASMS 2008), vol. 28,
>> issues 5-6, pp. 335-351, September-December 2010.
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sat.966
>> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/ijscn-asms-bundle-paper-submitted.pdf
>>
>> [2] Lloyd Wood, Wesley M. Eddy and Peter Holliday, 'A Bundle of Problems',
>> peer-reviewed conference paper, IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky,
>> Montana, March 2009.  16 pages.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839384
>> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/wood-ieee-aerospace-2009-bundle-
>> problems.pdf
>>
>> Lloyd Wood
>> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn
>>
>> that was a Star Wars reference, btw. May the 4th: may the force...
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>> Sent: Monday, 5 May 2014 1:46 AM
>> To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng); dtn-interest@irtf.org
>> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
>>
>> Lloyd,
>>
>> On 04/05/14 09:19, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>> > I have a bad feeling about this.
>>
>> FWIW, my impression is that you'd have a bad feeling about
>> anything related to rfc5050 regardless. IMO, it'd be quite
>> reasonable for people to disregard quite a bit of what you
>> say on that basis, i.e. that you appear to be interested
>> in being destructively critical. That's a pity, since there
>> are things to be improved/fixed for which you have argued,
>> and with which others agree.
>>
>> Its even more a pity as it somewhat poisons the discussion,
>> so I'd ask that if you can, please you try to put aside your
>> distaste for rfc5050 and your annoyance at dtnrg history and
>> try constructively discuss the proposed IETF wg.
>>
>> S.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>