IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Daniel Ellard <dellard@bbn.com> Mon, 05 May 2014 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <dellard@bbn.com>
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 A239F1A032B for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 06:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.852
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-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 GOxgD19SqmNU for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 May 2014 06:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.0.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEA81A0326 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Mon, 5 May 2014 06:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smp.bbn.com ([192.1.122.36]:60681) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dellard@bbn.com>) id 1WhJ5M-000Jvq-GC; Mon, 05 May 2014 09:37:36 -0400
Received: from senshu.bbn.com ([128.89.72.225]:52945) by smp.bbn.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dellard@bbn.com>) id 1WhNjj-000KF3-44; Mon, 05 May 2014 14:35:35 -0400
Message-ID: <53679417.5070206@bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 09:37:27 -0400
From: Daniel Ellard <dellard@bbn.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dtn-interest@irtf.org
References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983181B28DD43@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <1399071941.29419.823.camel@mightyatom>, <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B4238AFF1@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <1399191573646.95282@surrey.ac.uk>, <536660D6.1060306@cs.tcd.ie> <1399273959592.9040@surrey.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1399273959592.9040@surrey.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: dellard
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn-interest/i2vB7nUDVNqr4v6b2J4LoFRpVAk
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
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: Mon, 05 May 2014 13:37:41 -0000

Independent of the RG/WG question, I think it might be useful to
have more face-to-face meetings, or at least regular telecons. 
Maybe having WG meetings at the IETF meetings would help, but I
don't think it's a prerequisite.

In my experience, email threads often devolve into discussions of
all the ways we don't agree, while realtime or face-to-face
discussions are more productive in building consensus for things on
which we do agree (or at least agree to disagree and move on).

-Dan

-- 
Daniel Ellard, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Network Research
Raytheon BBN Technologies
dellard@bbn.com
617-873-8004

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email