Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 07 August 2014 17:07 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367101A0185 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mca_8sosRkoZ for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFF8C1A0009 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 10:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3465DBE83; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 18:07:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cf9xm5JYd7gX; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 18:07:27 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5B07BE80; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 18:07:26 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <53E3B24E.2050706@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:07:26 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
References: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832CEBD16@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832CEBD16@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/VWW7PQuyn6rMMOXJC7tildbA9T0
Subject: Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:07:32 -0000
Apologies for the top post. 1. If this style of minimal change (*) charter is where we go, then I really think a refinement of the over-long list that Scott presented at the BoF has to happen before a wg is formed. That'd change this charter text quite a bit I think since e.g. there'd be no need for a problem statement RFC then. 2. Separate to the above, I'm going to try one more time to argue for a less minimal change. I think that I'm in the rough on that, but after the BoF a bit less so than I expected. And if, as I expect, I remain in the rough there, then I'll shut up about it and be weakly supportive of the minimal style charter Fred's proposing. I won't get to proposing that for a week or so though. Cheers, S. (*) "minimal" is not a pejorative term here, but as previously discussed on the list is meant to denote the amount of intended change from rfc5050. On 07/08/14 00:48, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Hello, > > Please see below for a revised draft charter for public review. > Please send comments to the list so that we may have an open > discussion. > > Thanks - Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > > Draft working group charter: > **************************** > Working group name: > > Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking Working Group (DTNWG) > > Chair(s): > > TBD > > Area and Area Director(s): > > Transport Area: ADs Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf at gmail.com>, > Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf at gmail.com> > > Responsible Area Director: > > Martin Steimerling <mls.ietf at gmail.com> > > Mailing list: > > General Discussion: dtn at ietf.org > To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn > Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn/current/maillist.html > > Description of Working Group: > > The Delay/Disruption Tolerant Network Working Group (DTNWG) specifies > mechanisms for data communications in the presence of long delays > and/or intermittent connectivity. The work is motivated by well known > limitations of standard Internet protocols that expect end-to-end > connectivity between communicating endpoints, sub-second transmission > delays and robust packet delivery ratios. In environments where these > favorable conditions do not apply, existing mechanisms encounter problems > such as reliable transport protocol handshakes timing out and routing > protocols failing to converge resulting in communication failures. > Furthermore, classical end-to-end security associations cannot be > coordinated when communicating endpoints cannot conduct multi-message > keying exchanges in a timely fashion. These limitations suggested the > need for a new approach. > > Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN) protocols have been the subject of > extensive research and development in the Delay-Tolerant Networking > Research Group (DTNRG) of the Internet Research Task Force since 2002. > The DTNRG has developed the Delay-Tolerant Networking Architecture > (RFC 4838) that the DTNWG uses as the basis for its work. The key > components of this architecture are the bundle concept for > encapsulating data units, the bundle transmission protocol and the > underlying convergence layer architecture. > > The experimental DTN Bundle Protocol (RFC 5050) and Licklider > Transmission Protocol (RFC 5326) have been shown to address the > issues identified above in substantial fielded deployments in the space > sector [1]. RFC 5050 in conjunction with TCP- and UDP-based convergence > layers has been used successfully in a number of experiments both in > communications challenged environments around the edges of the Internet > and as an Internet overlay where applications require delay- and/or > disruption-tolerance [refs needed]. > > The success of the BP over convergence layer protocol stack -- the core > protocols of the "DTN Architecture" described in RFC 4838 -- may be > attributed to the following fundamental design principles: > > - There is never any expectation of contemporaneous end-to-end > connectivity between any two network nodes. > > - Because end-to-end connectivity can never be assumed, each node > on the path between source and destination must be prepared to > handle incoming "bundles" of data that cannot immediately be > forwarded. > > - Again because end-to-end connectivity can never be assumed, > end-to-end conversational data exchange can never be assumed to > complete in a timely manner; protocol features that rely on > timely conversational data exchange must therefore be excluded > from the architecture or coupled with DTN-aware proxies. > > The DTNWG believes that protocols adhering to these principles offer > opportunities for enhancing the functionality of the Internet, including > > - facilitating the extension of the Internet into environments such as > the ocean floor and deep space in which the core Internet protocols > operate sub-optimally for the reasons discussed earlier; > > - extending the Internet into communications challenged terrestrial > environments where it is not possible to provide continuous, low > delay Internet connections; and > > - supporting Internet use cases that need DTN capabilities. > > We believe that the extensive research, demonstration, and > pilot operations performed to date using the DTNRG protocols provides > a firm basis for publishing Internet standards derived from that work. > > Work items related to Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking include: > > o An informational "Problem Statement, Use Cases and Requirements" > document - to be co-authored by industry partners with interest > in progression of the working group standards-track work items. > > o A mechanism for the exchange of protocol data units, termed > "bundles", that are designed to obviate conversational communications > by containing values for all potentially relevant configuration > parameters. These protocol data units are typically larger than > network-layer packets. We will derive this bundle exchange mechanism > from the DTN Bundle Protocol (BP) documented in RFC 5050 by publishing > a new document for which [2] is a proposed first draft (where > appendix A provides a summary of the proposed changes). > > o A security protocol for ensuring that the network in which bundles > are exchanged is secured against unauthorized access and denial of > service attacks, and to ensure data integrity and confidentiality > in that network where necessary. We will derive this security > protocol from a "streamlined" adaptation of the DTN Bundle Security > Protocol documented in RFC 6257. > > o An informational "DTN Advanced Features Survey" document including > candidate recharter work items such as routing, neighbor (contact) > discovery, security key management, network management, bundle-in > -bundle encapsulation, reliable bundle delivery, IPv6, etc. > > o Simple convergence layer protocols for adaptation of the bundle > protocol to underlying internetworks. We expect to derive these > convergence layer protocols from the Datagram Convergence protocol > documented in RFC 7122 and the TCP Convergence-Layer Protocol > documented in RFC 7242. > > o A registry for DTN Service Identifiers > > The working group will consider adding supplementary work items based on > new information and knowledge gained while working on the initial charter, > as well as to accommodate new work items beyond the scope of the initial > phase. > > Goals and Milestones: > start+0mos - Accept 'DTN Problem Statement, Use Cases and Requirements' as > a working group work item intended for Informational. > start+0mos - Accept 'Bundle Protocol Specification (RFC5050bis)' [2] as > a working group work item intended for Proposed Standard. > Start+0mos - Accept 'Streamlined Bundle Security Protocol (SBSP)' [3] as > a working group work item intended for Proposed Standard. > start+6mos - Working group getting concensus on changes to be implemented > in RFC 5050(bis). > start+6mos - Accept 'DTN Advanced Features Survey' as a working group work > item intended for Informational. > start+9mos - Working group getting consensus on merging RFC5050bis and > SBSP into a combined draft or keep as separate drafts. > start+12mos - Submit RFC5050bis and SBSP to the IESG either as a combined > draft or as separate drafts. > start+15mos - Submit Registry [4] and Simple Convergence Layer [5][6] as > working group documents. > start+16mos - Survey appropriate forums (e.g., DTNRG) for emerging > technologies (e.g., convergence layer protocols, dynamic > routing protocols, naming and addressing services, etc.) > ready for transition into IETF DTN Working Group. Publish > draft on survey results as independent submission related > to the WG. > start+18mos - Submit Registry and Simple Convergence Layer to IESG > start+18mos - Recharter to accommodate new work items or close Working Group > > > [1] "BP/LTP deployment on EPOXI spacecraft" [2008], > http://committees.comsoc.org/tccc/ccw/2010/slides/DINET_CCW.pdf > [2] "Proposed Revised Bundle Protocol" [2014], > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burleigh-bpv7/ > [3] "Streamlined Bundle Security Protocol Specification" [2014], > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-dtnrg-sbsp/ > [4] "Delay-Tolerant Networking Bundle Protocol IANA Registries" [2011], > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6255/ > [5] "Datagram Convergence Layers ..." [2014], > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7122/ > [6] "TCP Convergence-Layer Protocol..." [2014], > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7242/ > > _______________________________________________ > dtn mailing list > dtn@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn > >
- [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Sebastian Schildt
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Joerg Ott
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Burleigh, Scott C (312G)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Burleigh, Scott C (312G)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Wesley Eddy
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Burleigh, Scott C (312G)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review William Immerman
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Clark, Gilbert
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review l.wood
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Burleigh, Scott C (312G)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Stephen Farrell
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Avri Doria
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Brian Haberman
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Burleigh, Scott C (312G)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review l.wood
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review l.wood
- [dtn] Draft Charter Update Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Nabil Benamar
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Ivancic, William D. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Nabil Benamar
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Wesley Eddy
- Re: [dtn] Draft charter for review Templin, Fred L