Re: DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

I also think it is a good idea to start this WG which I support, we don't
need to focus on the protocol proposed in 5050 but on the DTN use cases and
any protocol can be our start discussion/comparison of new DTN experimental
drafts.

AB

On Saturday, July 19, 2014, Avri Doria wrote:

>
>
> On 18-Jul-14 23:28, [e-mail] <javascript:;> wrote:
> > I think that having an IETF workgroup push the technically
> > flawed Bundle Protocol through on standards track, after years
> > of poor development and unfixed problems
>
>
> I thought that the work of a WG was to take the work done by a RG and
> make it production worthy, I.e.fix whatever flaws and experimental
> deficiencies there might be in the outputs.
>
> I know you have had another solutions in mind since the beginning of
> time, but many of us have found RFC5050 and some of the other work done
> in the DTNRG to offer useful solutions to our communications requirements.
>
> And building on the IETF tradition that, for the most part, the IETF
> works on protocols and the market decides which it wants to use, I think
> taking the work of the DTNRG and the expereince that many of us having
> using that protocols and turning some of it into production worthy
> protocols is a really good idea.  Then the world can decide whether they
> want to use them or not.
>
> As I missed the initial announcement, I am glad you pointed it out, as I
> just subscribed and am in general support the idea of a proposal for a
> DTNWG.
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
>