Subject: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 22:47:43 +0300

Hi,

having talked to various people, we feel that there is potential
for having another longer DTNRG meeting to make active progress on
the specifications.

Google has kindly offered to host a meeting on 26/27 July 2012
in San Jose, CA.  Time and date are chosen so that the IETF meeting
is not too far away.  The meeting will run for two full days.

One major discussion item will be revising RFC 5050 and related
specifications.  We have gained lots of experience and have found
that some things work better than others.  It appears a good point
in time to start thinking on how to fold this experience into our
specs.

We will provide more detailed information about the venue soonish.

Please send us private email if you want to attend so that we can
get a rough estimate of the group size.

Stephen, Kevin, and Jörg

---

From: "Fall, Kevin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 20:19:59 +0000

Slight correction-- that will presumably be Mountain View rather than San
Jose.
[a few miles further north].
Regards,
- Kevin

---

From: Vint Cerf <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 17:11:46 -0400

yes, mountain view.

v

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Fall, Kevin <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:42:46 +0100

If work is to be done on revising RFC5050, addressing these weak points would be a good idea:

1. RFC5050's dependence on clocks; a delay-tolerant protocol that requires synchronised system clocks, and can't tolerate delays between them, has limited application and awkward failure modes. One description of the problem is in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrell-dtnrg-alt-time-00

2. RFC5050's inability to detect errors in transmission or delivery, even in its own payload headers - a disadvantage in the disrupted, unreliable, networks that RFC5050 is intended for. A description of the problem and proposal to address this is in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-dtnrg-bundle-checksum-09
(I see from a garbled note in the minutes of the last IRTF meeting that this was discussed there?
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-dtnrg.txt
No idea what was said)

There are probably other points on RFC5050 discussed in 'A Bundle of Problems' that will be useful to consider:
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/publications/index.html#bundle-problems
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839384

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Joerg Ott [[email-masked]]
Sent: 13 May 2012 20:47
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dtn-interest] DTNRG meeting in San Jose

Hi,

Stephen, Kevin, and Jörg

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 20:46:56 +0100

Thanks Lloyd,

I'm going to start a new thread because we (chairs)
agreed we would try to put a bit of structure on
this discussion. (You can respond to that if you like
but no need if you'd rather not, we'll make sure
these suggestions are taken into account.)

Cheers,
S.