Yoav, Yes, Saratoga started as a draft in the DTNRG (draft-wood-tsvwg-saratoga). We carried the first bundles from space in 2008, and used our experience to analyse failings in the bundle protocol. (See our "A bundle of problems" paper.) Unfortunately, DTNRG wasn't chartered to do DTN research. It was chartered to do only development of the bundle protocol as the one true solution to DTNs, whick it wasn't. In any case, IRTF groups can't standardise anything, just produce experimental RFCs (though CCSDS was pushing for standardising bundling for itself last I looked.) Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn ________________________________________ From: Yoav Nir [ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: 22 April 2013 16:15 To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) Cc: <worley@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review) Well, there isn't a delay tolerant networks working group, but the IRTF has a DTNRG ( http://irtf.org/dtnrg ). At least one of the chairs is a "goer". If you really wanted to standardize this, wouldn't you be able to find 1-2 people on the DTNRG list who would be willing to "do the BoF thing"? I'm not saying this is definitely what you should do. There are plenty of reasons to bring something to the IETF and to not bring it. I'm only saying that it is possible. Yoav On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:12 PM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > And the technology that my team is pushing would be Saratoga: > http://saratoga.sf.net > which has interoperable implementations that can do 50Mbps in perl, a decade of operational experience in its application domain, and mature drafts. > > But this is in the transport area, and TSV has somewhat limited resources, so it's outside the span of attention from a wg. But still worth documenting as experimental. > > Lloyd Wood > http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ > > > ________________________________________ > From: Yoav Nir [ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 19 April 2013 10:02 > To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) > Cc: <worley@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review) > > Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even without attending, although you would need to collaborate with some people who do go. But pushing a new technology requires team building anyway. > > The same should apply to other non-attenders who have gained some reputation. > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 11:23 AM, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> >> and the point of your ad-hominem argument is what, exactly? >> >> Lloyd Wood >> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Yoav Nir [ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: 18 April 2013 15:18 >> To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) >> Cc: worley@xxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG Review) >> >> Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has several co-authors that I recognize as current "goers". You also have a current draft with several co-authors, but I have no idea whether they're "goers" or not. Anyway, you are not a hermit. Through the RFCs and drafts that you have co-authored, you know people who do attend. > > > Email secured by Check Point