H, Will.
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. Individuals have offered to help out within the bounds of their
workloads, but they don't appear to be pushing for this.
From my perspective, I don't think that those of us who worked on N4C want to
abandon the bundle protocol concept, but, as Stephen has intimated, N4C and
other terrestrial projects have identified some problems with the RFC5050
implementation of the concept some of which go in different directions from the
problems mentioned in the WG BOF discussions.
I spent quite a bit of time on the SAIL project looking at how to integrate an
RFC5050 based DTN instantiation of the netinf ICN scheme with its
instantiation(s) over HTTP and UDP. There were various practical issues that
made this much more difficult than it ought to have been (partially due to
incomplete (or more accurately, absent) implementations of extension blocks in
the DTN2 API) but more fundamentally, issues with the whole extension block
story - knowing what had been sent whether or not security/integrity was used -
and generally difficulties trying to integrate the DTN model with the HTTP
model.
I also know that we don't have a useful practical terrestrial routing protocol
- something that bit N4C and SAIL.
So I can see why RFC 5050 per se is at a halt, but that doesn't mean an
improved instantiation of the bundle concept that integrated more easily with
the well-connected Internet wouldn't be an interesting research topic.
Regards,
Elwyn
Sent from my ASUS Pad
William Ivancic <ivancic(_at_)syzygyengineering(_dot_)com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list
dtn(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn