IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn-interest] DTN architecture issues for handling Huge Content Objects

John Zinky <jzinky@bbn.com> Thu, 06 December 2012 22:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jzinky@bbn.com>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0005121F85E4 for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M9m8sNW7ddyS for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.bbn.com (smtp.bbn.com [128.33.1.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8767621F85D3 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:30:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from apple.bbn.com ([128.89.72.183]:64715) by smtp.bbn.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <jzinky@bbn.com>) id 1TgjxC-00073V-L2 for dtn-interest@irtf.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:30:02 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: John Zinky <jzinky@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B0FA1072F@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:30:02 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <89195B53-1606-48D5-B6BE-6253A089D3B6@bbn.com>
References: <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B0FA0F473@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <CCE53432.D259%william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B0FA0F77F@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL> <CC504B2B-3965-4CCC-812E-5405BB47B721@bbn.com> <A5BEAD028815CB40A32A5669CF737C3B0FA1072F@ap-embx-sp40.RES.AD.JPL>
To: "dtn-interest@irtf.org" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTN architecture issues for handling Huge Content Objects
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 22:30:04 -0000

Scott,
I hope that your new application services will put their headers as extension blocks and not layer them inside the bundle payload. I was really encouraged by your previous posts about non-layered protocols!

On Dec 6, 2012, at 3:46 PM, "Burleigh, Scott C (313B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> It would be a standardized application service layer -- similar to a transport layer -- running immediately above BP.

On Dec 5, 2012, at 1:53 PM, "Burleigh, Scott C (313B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Which it already has, to some extent, because additional features such as QoS are added in extension blocks (e.g., BSP and Extended Class of Service) rather than in additional layers.

> The only DTN extension blocks that can be said to nest are the BSP extensions, and I there's a strong argument for removing that nesting as well.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email