Re: DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea

[Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>]

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, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx 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