As far as my comments regarding US Army (these are the guys evaluation DTN):
How about deductive reasoning rather thancitation. If I recall correctly there
has been little if any input from the US Army or those who worked on DTN for
them such as the BBN folks in the past year or two on any of the DTN list
including this one. Thus, my conclusion is that they do not appear to be
pushing for continued work on RFC5050.
From your input and others that worked the N4C project, I deduce the same.
There doesn't appear to be a push to continue work on RFC5050. It is fine if
it happens. Iindividuals have offered to help out within the bounds of their
workloads, but they don't appear to be pushing for this.
This is my perspective, but it is not based on rumor, rather observation.
Granted, they say appearances can be deceiving. But then again, they may not
be.
Will
________________________________
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
To: William Ivancic <ivancic(_at_)syzygyengineering(_dot_)com>; Martin
Stiemerling <mls(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; Lloyd Wood
<lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>; "iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org"
<iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org>; "iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "dtn(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<dtn(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [dtn] proposed DTN workgroup - what is process being followed?
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.