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

Hi Lloyd,

I have to say that I mostly agree with Stephen. IMHO, "Bundle of Problems"
is a very useful document and still applies today, but I see it as an
actionable problem statement and not an end-of-the-road pronouncement.
I believe most of the BoP problems can be addressed in an RFC5050(bis)
and we would tackle this in the initial working group work items.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn-interest [mailto:dtn-interest-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of l.wood@surrey.ac.uk
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:13 AM
> To: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie; dtn-interest@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> I would discourage others from using or building on
> RFC5050, based on our experience in testing the Bundle
> Protocol in space [1], analysing the protocol's failings
> [2], and a variety of previously suggested fixes and drafts
> in this RG that never went anywhere, which aren't published.
> 
> That's our engineering judgement on RFC5050 as it stands,
> and many long-time readers will be familiar with our arguments.
> But, as far as discussing the proposed WG and a modified
> RFC5050bis goes:
> 
> Any protocol is simply an artefact that is an outcome of a process by people.
> It's reasonable to have doubts about the same pool of people producing anything
> better in a similar process. If there's a new crowd from Boeing et al with
> relevant expertise and funding/resources/time, that may help.
> (Or not, depending on the learning curve.)
> 
> Will the putative IETF WG be as wholly focused on, say, security?
> I don't see how having a set of milestones magically fixes things
> that years in this research group, with discussion between the interested,
> did not. I don't see how an RG with failing output and limited adoption
> can be transformed into a WG with successful output and widespread (even
> terrestrial?) adoption, and I have never seen that done.
> (RGs have transformed and mutated into other RGs, with rather
> varying success.)
> 
> How can a WG with the mandate 'fix the bundle protocol' succeed?
> Is it just being set up to fail? Should it therefore not be set up at all?
> 
> [1] Will Ivancic, Wesley M. Eddy, Dave Stewart, Lloyd Wood, James Northam
> and Chris Jackson, 'Experience with delay-tolerant networking from orbit',
> peer-reviewed journal paper, International Journal of Satellite
> Communications and Networking, special issue for best papers of the Fourth
> Advanced Satellite Mobile Systems Conference (ASMS 2008), vol. 28,
> issues 5-6, pp. 335-351, September-December 2010.
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sat.966
> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/ijscn-asms-bundle-paper-submitted.pdf
> 
> [2] Lloyd Wood, Wesley M. Eddy and Peter Holliday, 'A Bundle of Problems',
> peer-reviewed conference paper, IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky,
> Montana, March 2009.  16 pages.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839384
> http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/publications/wood-ieee-aerospace-2009-bundle-
> problems.pdf
> 
> Lloyd Wood
> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn
> 
> that was a Star Wars reference, btw. May the 4th: may the force...
> ________________________________________
> From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> Sent: Monday, 5 May 2014 1:46 AM
> To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng); dtn-interest@irtf.org
> Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN BoF Proposal for IETF90
> 
> Lloyd,
> 
> On 04/05/14 09:19, l.wood@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
> > I have a bad feeling about this.
> 
> FWIW, my impression is that you'd have a bad feeling about
> anything related to rfc5050 regardless. IMO, it'd be quite
> reasonable for people to disregard quite a bit of what you
> say on that basis, i.e. that you appear to be interested
> in being destructively critical. That's a pity, since there
> are things to be improved/fixed for which you have argued,
> and with which others agree.
> 
> Its even more a pity as it somewhat poisons the discussion,
> so I'd ask that if you can, please you try to put aside your
> distaste for rfc5050 and your annoyance at dtnrg history and
> try constructively discuss the proposed IETF wg.
> 
> S.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> dtn-interest@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest