Re: [dtn] rfc5050(bis) proposed revisions

Will, I certainly agree that it's unlikely that any decisions on any of these proposed revisions would emerge from conversations on this list, but it seems reasonable to me at least to be open to explaining and discussing them.  Wouldn't you agree that they fall under the heading of "What exactly and specifically should this group be working on if an IETF dtn working group is formed?"  This discussion might be especially helpful for people who may be signed up to this list out of possible commercial interest, who may not be real familiar with all of the technical concepts we've been working with over the past few years.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 1:00 PM
To: Templin, Fred L; dtn@ietf.org
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".

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:william.d.ivancic@nasa.gov]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:18 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; dtn@ietf.org
>> 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
>fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>> Will
>> 
>> ******************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/17/14 4:20 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> 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
>> >fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>> >
>> >---
>> >
>> >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:
>> >....

_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list
dtn@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn