IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

<l.wood@surrey.ac.uk> Wed, 23 July 2014 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <l.wood@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 283961ABB35 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sw7GtgG57p3I for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77E921A0262 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [85.158.137.99:11865] by server-16.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id EF/55-14115-61C1FC35; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:21:10 +0000
X-Env-Sender: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-10.tower-217.messagelabs.com!1406082069!24989067!1
X-Originating-IP: [131.227.200.31]
X-StarScan-Received:
X-StarScan-Version: 6.11.3; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 21942 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2014 02:21:09 -0000
Received: from exht011p.surrey.ac.uk (HELO EXHT011P.surrey.ac.uk) (131.227.200.31) by server-10.tower-217.messagelabs.com with AES128-SHA encrypted SMTP; 23 Jul 2014 02:21:09 -0000
Received: from EXHY012V.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) by exht011p.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.200.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:21:08 +0100
Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (131.227.201.241) by EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk (131.227.201.103) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 03:21:08 +0100
Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.19) by AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.242.23.19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.990.7; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:21:08 +0000
Received: from AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) by AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com ([10.242.23.19]) with mapi id 15.00.0990.007; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:21:08 +0000
From: l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
To: vint@google.com
Thread-Topic: [dtn-interest] DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea
Thread-Index: AQHPo00k6GVXIvyBhEyShuSfIJHrFpus6wRB
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:21:07 +0000
Message-ID: <1406082066584.5322@surrey.ac.uk>
References: <1405740483446.13356@surrey.ac.uk>, <CAHxHggd-FDtBsnLEtFQ_PMmOMX-qfsu9r00bDUnqK4c=OZdPQw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxHggd-FDtBsnLEtFQ_PMmOMX-qfsu9r00bDUnqK4c=OZdPQw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US
Content-Language: en-AU
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [122.200.59.30]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 028166BF91
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(199002)(51444003)(377454003)(24454002)(36756003)(106356001)(74502001)(19617315012)(16236675004)(21056001)(107046002)(31966008)(86362001)(74482001)(76482001)(46102001)(74662001)(92566001)(95666004)(106116001)(76176999)(15202345003)(50986999)(105586002)(92726001)(99396002)(54356999)(85306003)(81542001)(19580395003)(4396001)(19580405001)(81342001)(66066001)(101416001)(79102001)(2656002)(87936001)(85852003)(83072002)(110136001)(64706001)(77982001)(20776003)(561944003)(83322001)(15975445006)(80022001)(19627405001)(19607625011)(19627315001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:AMSPR06MB439; H:AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_14060820665845322surreyacuk_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: AMSPR06MB439.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: EXHY012v.surrey.ac.uk
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn-interest/foGzlleW3EIdw7_XCFd4LtdYyuk
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, iab@iab.org, dtn-interest@irtf.org, dtn@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:21:16 -0000

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<mailto: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<mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email