Re: [dtn] draft-blanchet-dtn-email-over-bp-00.txt

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 19/01/2023 00:16, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> Wait. The draft says clearly about the actual scenario.  And it also
> says that “operational” considerations such as many you write above
> are not discussed, 

That's fine. I don't think I criticised the draft text at
all, I'm rather asking whether stepping back first to discuss the bigger 
picture first is better. (And I think it is.)

> as I see this (important) discussion going
> elsewhere (either an operational document or at another forum). This
> draft is about encapsulation of email RFC822 into bundles. Nothing
> more, Nothing less. And standard MTA are able to read that format!
> “Everything else” (such as MUA, …), are to me outside the scope of
> the document as a protocol spec.

I guess I disagree there. ISTM that a better starting point
would be to figure out what needs to be standardised. And my
bet FWIW (and it's not worth much:-) is that miinimising the
bandwidth required while allowing users access to their
message stores is likely more pressing.

I'd also wonder whether an MTA-MTA SMTP/dtn encapsulation
would be better with one mail/bundle or not. I can envisage
scenarios where mail submission to 587 might well result in
one mail/bundle being emitted for sure, but that might not be
that common - hard to tell at this point.

So don't take me as opposing your draft - I think it's a good
discussion to have and your -00 is a fine start for that.

Cheers,
S.