Re: [dtn] rfc5050(bis) proposed revisions

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Will,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 1:00 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [dtn] rfc5050(bis) proposed revisions
> 
> 
> Fred,
> 
> Implementations may not have been the best  word choice, but there is a
> lot of "How"  in  bpv7.  What I meant was that Scott's propose revisions
> probably do not belong on the BOF this list. It could quickly lead to
> discussions of specification changes and where pieces should go which is
> currently should occur on dtn-interest.  Those should IMHO occur after the
> BOF, not before and not on the BOF list.   Removing dictionary.  Sort of
> specifying an addressing scheme (URL usage), Hop count as extension block,
> how to do bundle security, etc... are better served on dtn-interest at
> this point in time.  Just my opinion.   By the way, I'm not saying these
> are wrong, just that they do not belong on the BOF list.
> 
> I think the BOF list is suppose to be about
> "What exactly and specifically should this group be working on if an IETF
> dtn working group is formed?"
> "Should IETF form a working group?",
> "Are the protocols at a state where they are ready for IETF standard or is
> there more work that should be done in IRTF?"
> "Is there sufficient energy to get meaningful work done?"
> 
> 
> So we should be addressing "What", not "How".

I understand that this may be your opinion, but others have expressed
a different opinion.

> FYI:  Anyone list participant can get  information on who subscribed to an
> IETF mail list if they remember their password (and you can ask for your
> password to be resent). These lists are setup to be open, so the
> participation list is not just available to the administrators. At least
> that is my recollection and it has always worked for me.  Also, since
> anyone can sign up, basically, with minimal effort, anyone can see who
> subscribed to an IETF list.

That is fine; others who are curious about list membership can follow
your instructions if they are interested.

> If you go to dtn-interest and compare to dtn, the dtn-interest as far more
> participants.

And, if they look, they will see that the [e-mail] list membership
is not insubstantial.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

> 
> Will
> 
> 
> 
> >Hi Will,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:18 AM
> >> To: Templin, Fred L; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [dtn] rfc5050(bis) proposed revisions
> >>
> >> While I appreciate Scott's work and taking time to write bpv7, I think
> >> this list is not the place to discussion implementations and I think it
> >>is
> >> premature to consider these implementations until a working group is or
> >>is
> >> not formed (at which point we will know where those discussions should
> >> occur).  For now, IMHO, implementations issues are probably best
> >>addressed
> >> on dtn-interest.
> >
> >I'm not sure why you say "implementations"; we are talking about
> >specifications - not implementations. A discussion on the list of
> >planned changes for RFC 5050(bis) I think is perfectly reasonable
> >for this distribution.
> >
> >> Check the lists, there are far more subscribers on
> >> dtn-interest the the dtn BOF list.
> >
> >List administrators have access to the list of subscribers and,
> >while I can't say more, I can tell you that the membership of
> >this list is not insubstantial.
> >
> >Thanks - Fred
> >[e-mail]
> >
> >> Will
> >>
> >> ******************************
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hello,
> >> >
> >> >Below is a list of (proposed) revisions for rfc5050(bis) as found in
> >> >Appendix A of 'draft-burleigh-bpv7'. Please post any comments or
> >> >suggestions to the list.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks - Fred
> >> >[e-mail]
> >> >
> >> >---
> >> >
> >> >Appendix A.                  Summary of Revisions
> >> >
> >> >   This specification differs from RFC-5050 in a number of ways.  The
> >> >   revisions that seem to the author to be most significant are listed
> >> >   below:
> >> >....