Re: [dtn-interest] update to sdnv draft

Scott Burleigh <Scott.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Fri, 01 September 2006 15:10 UTC

Message-ID: <44F84D5E.7030501@jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:10:22 -0700
From: Scott Burleigh <Scott.Burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ltp@masaka.cs.ohiou.edu, dtn-interest@mailman.dtnrg.org
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] update to sdnv draft
References: <20060831202052.GB9622@grc.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <20060831202052.GB9622@grc.nasa.gov>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dtn-interest-admin@mailman.dtnrg.org
Errors-To: dtn-interest-admin@mailman.dtnrg.org
Precedence: bulk

Wesley Eddy wrote:
> All of the helpful comments that I received on the SDNV draft were
> incorporated into an update:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-eddy-dtn-sdnv-01.txt
>
> I think this clarifies some of the questions people have had around
> SDNVs and the decisions that were made.  I think it is fairly complete
> and do not want to spend too many more cycles on it.  I'm not certain if
> it has any utility as either an RG document or an individual submission
> to the RFC-editor, or if it should just be left to expire.  Opinions from
> implementers of BP and/or LTP would be helpful in deciding.
>   
I think this is really helpful and well-written, Wes; I would hate to 
see this good work wasted, and it would potentially be very handy to be 
able to reference such a document in future I-Ds and RFCs.  I'd like to 
see it submitted as an informational RFC one way or another.

Scott

[dtn-interest] Re: [ltp] update to sdnv draft Stephen Farrell
[dtn-interest] update to sdnv draft Wesley Eddy
RE: [dtn-interest] update to sdnv draft Symington, Susan F.
Re: [dtn-interest] update to sdnv draft Scott Burleigh