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

[<[e-mail]>]

> Lloyd,
>
> Why do you continue to expend so much time and effort

> on something you claim to be fundamentally broken?

> Wouldn't you make more productive use of that time

> working on a design for a Perpetual Motion Machine?


Hi Eric,


that's a really interesting analogy, and an interesting

question.


I'd argue that, in ignoring the ramifications of the

end-to-end principle, the effects of errors, and needing

synchronized clocks, that the Bundle Protocol fundamentally

ignores entropy. As such, the Bundle Protocol IS designed as

a perpetual motion machine, and the only reason it works is

that other things are handling that pesky entropy for it -

adjusting clocks, catching errors, and the like. Rather like a

perpetual motion machine getting some helpful inputs of

energy to stay "perpetual" and seemingly violate the second

law of thermodynamics, neglecting entropy.

(Hello, Steorn's Orbo and its helpful battery.)


And as someone with a basic grasp of physics,

it is my responsibility -- nay, my duty -- to point out that

perpetual motion machines don't work very well in reality.

Which has entropy.


And DTN scenarios have _lots_ of entropy,

unlike the pristine computer science environments the

protocol was conceived in.


So, the Bundle Protocol IS the design for the perpetual motion

machine that I keep discussing. We have come full circle,

rather like said machine is supposed to do.


Note that I discuss the protocol machine, rather than the people

behind it. The rest of your email is rather ad hominem.

I can't claim to be the smartest guy in the room, not least because

I don't get invited into those meeting rooms these days.

(I left that 2001 meeting early, and stayed distant.)


You complain, however, that I'm just not

charming enough to the Perpetual Motion Squad and the

pictures of that machine in their wallets while explaining

basic physics so that they can build a slightly less broken

perpetual motion machine, and that we've given up on

tinkering with the design of their perpetual motion

machine for them. That's a fair call. Discussion of basic

reliability becoming toxic was not entirely my doing

- again, a fair call. I don't believe error detection is
taught in enough computing courses...

The conclusions section of "A Bundle of Problems"

was charming enough in laying out our intent, I thought.

But then the perpetual motion analogy and recognition of

ultimate futility hadn't yet occurred to us.


And that nicely summarises my unease with the Bundle

Protocol technically (I've covered procedural unease

in earlier emails), and why I believe a standards-track effort

for it is unwarranted.


Thanks for the perpetual insight.


Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn/



________________________________
From: Eric Travis <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2014 6:20 PM
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea

Lloyd,

Why do you continue to expend so much time and effort on something you claim to be fundamentally broken?  Wouldn't you make more productive use of that time working on a design for a Perpetual Motion Machine?

>From more than a decade of observation, it strikes me that the substance of your "contributions" would be extremely valuable if only you would develop a more palatable communications style.  If you made fixing problems (or on improving upon the existing state) the priority over receiving public credit for "being right", your contributions would likely be better received and advanced.  Being recognized as right is *far* less useful than convincing others to do the right thing.

While you might be comfortable on the receiving end of your contributions, clearly most aren't.  Always assume your audience is thinner skinned than yourself.  If you were kind enough to return a lost wallet, but insisted on including a detailed, brutally honest critique of the family photos inside -  you shouldn't be surprised when you fail to receive a Thank You or even an acknowledgement for your effort.

>From my recollection of the dtn-interest mailing list, the failure of your checksum draft(s) to advance was not because there was a lack of consensus regarding the technical details - you received very positive feedback, but because of your insistence on including unnecessary (unhelpful) editorial content in each revision.  As this dragged on, the general concept of reliability became toxic.  Not *entirely* your doing, but you could have have bent a little in order to advance the draft (and the case for reliability).

Your prolonged frustration led you to choose a intentionally confrontational (insulting) presentation style for the "Bundle of Problems"  paper of which you are so proud.  The paper was understandably not well received in the DTNRG community.  Things degraded from there...

I'll note that while I often agree with the substance of your technical positions, your chosen presentation style (often) makes me want to disagree.  Alienation is not a winning strategy.

We met back in 2001 at a London meeting.  I was favorably impressed by you - and remember other attendees sharing the opinion (including Adrian).  You are certainly capable of effective contribution WHEN YOU WANT, but your default preference tends toward scorched earth...  It's entertaining but counter-productive.

Based on the historical impacts, I'd have to say that Vint's 2008 suggestion to you was indeed a good one. Whether or not the current suggestion that you not participate in a DTNWG is appropriate depends entirely on you...

You might be the "smartest kid in the class", but unless you expend some effort on a charm offensive it won't matter in the least.

Regards,

Eric



On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:21 PM, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Sent: Saturday, 19 July 2014 10:29 PM
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; 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, <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest


_______________________________________________
dtn-interest mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest