Lars, My distaste for the bundle protocol and DTNRG is more a distaste for both poor engineering decisions and poor process. the DTNRG (formerly the Interplanetary Internet IPNRG, now the DTNWG - third time's the charm, eh?) played fast and loose with IRTF conventions: rfc2014: The IRTF does not set standards rfc4440: This is necessary to ensure that RGs don't become a part of the standards process itself. [..] IRTF groups are not trying to produce standards of any kind and yet, setting standards (blue book standards for the CCSDS ISO subgroup) is what the IPNRG, DTNRG, and their participants have been doing the work for all along: http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/734x2b1.pdf and the motivation for transitioning to DTNWG is to finally get to the holy grail of a CCSDS book standard and an IETF standard that might gain popular adoption, because the last two attempts haven't managed to do so. Partly because of poor engineering design decisions that have to be revisited ("should a protocol intended for the harshest of conditions have any internal error detection or sanity-checking? No, of course not!"), partly because of a whole bunch of other debatable factors. But, since you've just finally closed down DTNRG, this problem and the question of hewing to what the IRTF is supposed to do for a now-closed research group is no longer your problem as IRTF chair. Be thankful. So, how should the IRTF cooperate with other communities? Good question, worth asking for a research organisation cooperating with other peer research organisations, just as the IETF cooperates with W3C, 3GPP, et al. between peer standards bodies. How should the IRTF do work for standards bodies, either the IETF or outside the IETF? The RFCs I've quoted seem clear. I don't think it's supposed to, and I don't think the IRTF should be trying to do standards development for anyone, as that immediately narrows the research focus to a single solution that can be standardised with intent to fast-track as a standard inside (and outside) the IETF, regardless of its merits. There's an immediate conflict of interest for the participants, especially those wearing more than one body's hat. There isn't a win-win in doing that, as much as the participants might wish there was. So, either the DTNRG is a spectacularly unique failure because it flouted the IRTF conventions put in place for good reason (and, oh yeah, those engineering decisions, partly driven by not wanting to disrupt the CCSDS standards process by revisiting anything), or it's an example of wider failings across the IRTF as a whole. Take your pick. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, 22 March 2016, 21:02 Subject: Re: Observations on (non-technical) changes affecting IETF operations On 2016-03-22, at 2:03, l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> The mode of failure I keep seeing in IETF is the following: >> >> 1) A very narrow scope is decided 'to focus' >> >> 2) Poorly thought out aspects of the proposal are defended because the >> problems they cause are 'out of scope' >> >> 3) The resulting RFC describes a protocol that is worse than useless. >> >> 4) The proposal fails in the market. >> >> 5) The experience is used as 'proof' that the problem is insoluble. (optional) > > This holds for the IRTF too - though step 5 there is 'let's form an IETF workgroup to push it into adoption! This time for sure!' No, it doesn't "hold for the IRTF." Please don't generalize from your dislike of the DTNRG's bundle protocol to the DTNRG as a whole, and then to the entire IRTF. Lars