Hi Kevin,
Yes, I worked closely with this group. Chart 19 says it all. Buy the way,
don't confuse the need for DTN with the need for the Bundle protocol. Chart 19
supports Wes' comments. There is not way this group can deploy large networks
without item 2.
Challenging network environment leads to link and network disruptions
1. Need to develop a robust DTNbased transport service
2. Requires solutions to addressing, routing, management, discovery and
forwarding/QOS
I have not seen this group actively participating on any of the DTN mail list
in the past year or two or perhaps more. Time flies.
Will
________________________________
From: Kevin Fall <kfall(_at_)kfall(_dot_)net>
To: William Ivancic <ivancic(_at_)syzygyengineering(_dot_)com>
Cc: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Martin Stiemerling
<mls(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; "iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org"
<iab(_at_)iab(_dot_)org>; "iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Lloyd Wood
<lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>; "dtn(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"
<dtn(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [dtn] proposed DTN workgroup - what is process being followed?
Based on a meeting I recently attended and 2014 references such as this:
(http://nsrc.cse.psu.edu/talks_2014/thoughts_on_future_army_waveforms_20Mar2014.pdf)
I cannot share your conclusion.