Re: [dtn] rfc5050(bis) proposed revisions

["Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)" <[e-mail]>]

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".


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.

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


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:
>> >....