Re: [dtn-interest] Document status check

["Symington, Susan F." <[e-mail]>]

Steven,

>From your list:
1) >17 May 2010  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-previous-hop-block

I believe that you listed this ID erroneously. It is among the group that Elwyn is helping to progress to RFC status.

2)
>05 Oct 2009  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-retrans-block
>12 Aug 2009  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-divert
>12 Aug 2009  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-encapsulation
>12 Aug 2009  	draft-symington-dtnrg-bundle-multicast-custodial

I believe the above are important, but I currently don't have the cycles to work on them.

The first I-D (retransmission block) is needed in order to distinguish intentional custodial retransmissions from nefarious replays. 

The next two I-Ds (divert and encapsulation) support bundle encapsulation. I thought they were ready to progress and I believe you said you would put them forward after the current batch was taken care of.

The last I-D describes how custodial delivery could be supported for bundles that are being multicasted (RFC 5050 only supports custodial delivery for unicast bundles). Not many readers seem to have paid much attention to this I-D, but it is pretty comprehensive. 

-susan

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:dtn-
>[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stephen
>Farrell
>Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:00 AM
>To: DTN
>Subject: [dtn-interest] Document status check
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>As usual, there're a bunch of I-Ds with dtnrg in their
>name, so I'd just like to get a sense of the state-of-play
>for these. Feel free to reply to the list, or just Kevin
>and I. The full list is at [1], but the list that I think
>is relevant is below, though I may have missed something,
>esp. if the file name is odd (note that the list omits
>the drafts that are already progressing).
>
>What I'd like is to get is a sense of whether you think
>drafts are dead or not, and if not, roughly where you think
>your draft is going, (and when).
>
>If you think the draft should live, but no longer have
>cycles to work on it, then that's interesting too - we
>may be able to recruit some new authors.
>
>I can start the ball rolling: I think of draft-farrell-dtnrg-km
>as a reminder that we've not done much in the way of key
>mgmt and should, but the draft wasn't ever really aimed
>at being an RFC. If someone wanted to revive or replace that,
>that'd be fine by me.
>
>Thanks,
>Stephen.
>
>[1] http://tools.ietf.org/id/dtnrg
>
>DTNRG non-expired:
>
>28 Apr 2010  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-age-block
>01 Jun 2010  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-ecos
>17 May 2010  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-previous-hop-block
>08 May 2010  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-checksum
>08 Mar 2010  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-ipnd
>
>DTNRG expired:
>
>05 Oct 2009  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-retrans-block
>12 Aug 2009  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-divert
>12 Aug 2009  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-encapsulation
>31 Mar 2009  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-dtn-uri-scheme
>09 Mar 2009  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-sec-overview
>19 Nov 2008  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-udp-clayer
>03 Nov 2008  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-tcp-clayer
>
>PERS non-expired:
>
>09 Jul 2010  	draft-burleigh-dtnrg-cgr
>08 May 2010  	draft-wood-dtnrg-saratoga
>08 May 2010  	draft-wood-dtnrg-http-dtn-delivery
>28 Feb 2010  	draft-fall-dtnrg-schl
>27 Feb 2010  	draft-mcmahon-dtnrg-dtn-edp
>10 Feb 2010  	draft-burleigh-dtnrg-ltpcl
>09 Feb 2010  	draft-irtf-dtnrg-ding-network-management
>
>PERS expired:
>
>26 Oct 2009  	draft-davies-dtnrg-uri-find
>12 Aug 2009  	draft-symington-dtnrg-bundle-multicast-custodial
>06 Jun 2009  	draft-ivancic-dtnrg-network-management-reqs
>22 May 2009  	draft-pbasu-dtnrg-naming
>19 Jun 2007  	draft-farrell-dtnrg-km
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dtn-interest mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest