if you listen to the recording of the Yokohama DTN meet, you will hear discussion of edits to CCSDS docs, rather than to the ietf drafts you might expect. At best, it's a revealing Freudian slip.
If you look through the archives of this ietf mailing list, you will find my objections to the formation of the dtn wg, and my predictions that it would be a vehicle for CCSDS, rather than favouring the Internet.
I find it interesting that popular mail programs now lack any options for configuring text formatting. There isn't an app for that.
Lloyd Wood
On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, 20:05, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Lloyd,
For those of us who still read email in plain text form for
security and other reasons, your message was very nearly
unreadable, as you can probably deduced from the quoted parts
below (missing blank lines were missing in the original).
--On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 08:04 +0000 Lloyd Wood
<eclipticplane2002@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important;
> border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex
> !important; background-color:white !important; } "a strong and
> technical AD review role also provides some protection against
> a WG that becomes dominated by a narrow set of organizations or
> interests and that therefore produces results that are
> favorable to those interests rather than the Internet more
> broadly." *cough* DTN WG *cough*
> when draft authors presenting at an IETF meeting speak only of
> CCSDS books, it's clear what interests and results are being
> favoured.
Why do you think that follows? Do you believe that people
should not be permitted to write or post documents because they
have too-narrow perspectives or perspectives you disagree with?
Do you think we should have a rule against citing some
particular organization or standards body?
If you think DTN is being mismanaged, have you discussed the
issues with the WG Chairs and relevant ADs? If you have not
gotten satisfaction, have you made requests that can be appealed
and exercised that option, copying the IETF list on the
substantive contents of that appeal?
And, even if that one effort were a problem, do you have some
basis for assuming that the problem generalizes?
There is a separate issue about "presentations" at IETF
meetings, but I hope we can avoid repeating that thread.
> how long ago were the expectations for the AD role lowered?
Whether one likes the version of any particular year or not, I
think the AD role, and expectations of it, have been continually
changing (I won't go so far as to say "evolving") since the
reorganization of the early 1990s and probably earlier.
best,
john