Hi Will,
On 22/10/14 00:46, William Ivancic wrote:
Correction:
Correction: forgot the NOT between 'do' and 'appear'. Changes the
meaning significantly.
So, the original proponents of DTN such as the US Army and those
other than the Space Community such as the those working the N4C
project do NOT appear to be pushing for continued work on RFC5050, I
think, mainly due to difficulty in real world deployments.
Citation? I'm not aware of any. If there are no citations due
to a lack of public release then I'd be as critical of basing
a decision on that as I was about the lack of use-case detail
supplied by folks who do want the new WG. Decisions here ought
not be based on rumour which is what your statement about the
US army ends up as in the absence of citations or real details
I'm afraid.
In the case of N4C, you are incorrect to infer that others
involved in that project would have agreed with my alternative
proposal. We simply don't know as they've not spoken up. Its
also not correct to say that 5050 caused deployment difficulty
for N4C - it didn't really. (My own reasons for preferring a
different target differ form that, but were stated already in
this discussion.)
S.