Re: [dtn] proposed DTN workgroup - what is process being followed?

[Elwyn Davies <[e-mail]>]

H, Will.

> From your input and others that worked the N4C project, I deduce the same.  There doesn't appear to be a push to continue work on RFC5050.  It is fine if it happens. Individuals have offered to help out within the bounds of their workloads, but they don't appear to be pushing for this.

From my perspective, I don't think that those of us who worked on N4C want to abandon the bundle protocol concept, but, as Stephen has intimated, N4C and other terrestrial projects have identified some problems with the RFC5050 implementation of the concept some of which go in different directions from the problems mentioned in the WG BOF discussions.

I spent quite a bit of time on the SAIL project looking at how to integrate an RFC5050 based DTN instantiation of the netinf ICN scheme with its instantiation(s) over HTTP and UDP.  There were various practical issues that made this much more difficult than it ought to have been (partially due to incomplete (or more accurately, absent) implementations of extension blocks in the DTN2 API) but more fundamentally, issues with the whole extension block story - knowing what had been sent whether or not security/integrity was used - and generally difficulties trying to integrate the DTN model with the HTTP model.

I also know that we don't have a useful practical terrestrial routing protocol - something that bit N4C and SAIL.

So I can see why RFC 5050 per se is at a halt, but that doesn't mean an improved instantiation of the bundle concept that integrated more easily with the well-connected Internet wouldn't be an interesting research topic.

Regards,
Elwyn 
Sent from my ASUS Pad

William Ivancic <[e-mail]> wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>dtn mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn