Subject: [dtn-interest] "A Bundle of Problem" problem statements

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:42:29 +0000

Hello,

"A Bundle of Problems" [1] provides a useful analysis of the Bundle
Protocol [2] and other works of the DTNRG. I see the document as
"useful", because the healthy way to look at it is "here are some
things to think about, so let's go fix them" as opposed to an
alternate viewpoint of "the protocol is broken, and there is
nothing we can do about it".

In my experience, the first step toward resolution of problems is
to start with a problem statement that invites solution proposals.
To that end, I am starting a series of "Problem Statement" docs
that address some of the issues raised with the goal of improving
the protocol. It doesn't matter whether the solutions come in the
form of new documents or as inclusions for an RFC5050(bis). What
matters is an acknowledgement that we are aware of the problems
and have best intentions of addressing them.

I hope this can serve as the basis for some productive discussion.
Thank you for your time.

Fred Templin
[email-masked] 

[1] Wood, L., Eddy, W. and P. Holliday, "A Bundle of Problems",
    IEEEAC paper #1023, December 2008.
[2] Scott, K., and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol Specification",
    RFC5050, November 2007.

---

From: Eric Travis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 23:58:07 -0400

Fred,

If you haven't already done so, I encourage you to browse the archives
of this mailing list.

You will find these topics "discussed" multiple times over the years...

Opinions might have changed, but history suggests difficulty getting
(eventual) consensus that these are indeed problems, let alone what
protocol improvements are beneficial.

Perhaps starting with a "Problem Statement" document seeking to
provide consensus on defining the *minimal* characteristics/services
required/provided of the ecosystem underlying of a [bundle-oriented]
DTN (a store-and-forward overlay network) should be... is a worthy
prequel to this series?

I *fully* support with your intent here, but it is best to be mindful
of the past...

Regards,

Eric
[email-masked]

On 3/12/14, Templin, Fred L <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-interest mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest
>

-- 

*Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize that half of them
are stupider than that.*
*--- George Carlin*

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 07:01:27 +0000

I'm looking forward to reading some peer-reviewed 'A Bundle of Joy: how it
all works just fine despite ignoring the end-to-end principle, and clocks and
reliability really aren't problems' paper.

Until then, we do have 'A Bundle of Problems' [1] to fall back on.

I'd like to see the Bundle Protocol decoupled from the DTN environment.
DTN is the problem space, bundling is but one attempt to address that space.

Where bundling failed was scope creep - interplanetary probes to military
to... Different use cases are able to leverage different things. Different
use casess require different approaches to security. There's no
one-size-fits-all solution here.

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood

[1] Lloyd Wood, Wesley M. Eddy and Peter Holliday, 'A Bundle of Problems',
peer-reviewed conference paper, IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky,
Montana, March 2009.  16 pages.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839384
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/dtn
________________________________________
From: dtn-interest [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eric Travis [[email-masked]]
Sent: 13 March 2014 03:58
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] "A Bundle of Problem" problem statements

Fred,

Regards,

Eric

--

---

From: Eric Travis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 08:46:42 -0400

Curiously, I've been looking forward to reading 'A Bundle of Joy: The
Lloyd Wood. Approach to Persuasive Writing'.  Until then, we have your
collective postings in this mailing list archive to fall back upon...

Bundling is an approach to communicating in the DTN problem space; The
Bundle protocol and it's associated entities are *an* approach for
implementing Bundling.  While the existing Bundle Protocol [and
friends] is arguably flawed (simultaneously overbuilt and yet
incomplete), your assertion that Bundling has "failed" is not
supported.

The goal is a common framework supporting "different use cases are
able leverage different things. Different use cases require different
approaches to security".  Bundling (and the existing Bundle Protocol)
support the mixing and matching of mechanisms and policies as required
by the different use cases.

Engineering is an iterative process - there has not been anything
identified that precludes Bundling being a viable approach to DTN.
>From my perspective, the obstacles here are not technical, but
philosophical (and parochial).

And...  your approach is NOT helping move things forward within this
community, but that isn't your intent (any more?) is it?

Eric Travis

On 3/13/14, [email-masked] <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Montana, March 2009.  16 pages.
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839384

--

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:51:57 +0000

Hi Eric,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Travis [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 8:58 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L

Yes, I especially saw threads such as "DTN Time Sync Issues":

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest/current/msg01913.html

> You will find these topics "discussed" multiple times over the years...

Right, and I don't mean to ignore any of the past discussions.

> protocol improvements are beneficial.

I would like to see that problem statements would lead to
requirements which would lead to solutions. But, I don't think
that necessarily means throwing out everything that has already
been done. 

> I *fully* support with your intent here, but it is best to be mindful

Thanks Eric,

Fred

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:36:01 +0000

Hi Lloyd,

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:01 AM
> To: [email-masked]; Templin, Fred L
> Subject: RE: [dtn-interest] "A Bundle of Problem" problem statements
> 

I don't think the situation is quite as black-and-white as that.
I don't think it is possible to write a "thing of joy" paper
about any modern networking solution (e.g., OSPF, BGP, IPv6) but
that does not mean that they cannot (or will not) be used on a
wide scale.

> Until then, we do have 'A Bundle of Problems' [1] to fall back on.

Yes, it is a useful document in terms of pointing out shortcomings
and calling for improvements, and I think the community is better
off for having it. But, IMHO it could be looked at as a guidebook
for moving forward rather than a disqualification of everything
that came before.

> DTN is the problem space, bundling is but one attempt to address that space.

I am new to this community, but my experiences in the RRG showed
that it may not ever be possible to gain full consensus in a
research group but solutions go forward just the same.

> one-size-fits-all solution here.

Yet what I am seeing in the Bundle Protocol in my limited experience
so far is design-for-flexibility rather than design-for-efficiency.
A parallel can be seen in the way OSPF was found to be not optimal
for all MANETs, and so myriad custom MANET routing protocols were
designed for efficiency down to the bit level. But at the same
time, OSPF/MANET extensions have shown that efficient adaptations
of a flexible system are possible for many (if not most) use cases.

Thanks - Fred