Subject: [dtn] Adrian Farrel's No Objection on charter-ietf-dtn-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:44:18 -0700

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dtn-00-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dtn/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't object to this being taken on as IETF work if there is a critical
mass of people willing to do the work. I leave it to the responsible AD
to make that judgement.

I am nervous about the scope of update to 5050. There is certainly text
in the charter that makes it clear that updates are in scope:

  In this context, there is a need to
  update the base specifications, i.e., RFC 5050, [snip]
  based on the deployment and implementation experience
  as well as the new use cases

That would be fine, but my nervousness is that changes, updates, and
improvements to 5050 will be resisted because of the existing
implementations and deployments. I suppose I am old and cynical (and
probably tired), but all too often the objective "move this work onto the
Standards Track" outweighs any attempt to improve the work. 

If this could be resolved by tightening the text in the charter I would
not object.

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 13:19:30 +0200

Hi Adrian,

There is critical mass behind this, as shown during the BOF in Toronto. 
I had also the same doubt before seeing the discussions happening in 
Toronto and the positive outcome in terms of number of people (and 
different organisational entities) that have a need for a standards 
tracker verion of DTN and also the need to get things clarified and 
fixed in the existing specs.

> Standards Track" outweighs any attempt to improve the work.

The future will tell us what the WG is going to do, i.e., it is hard to 
foresee if there will be attempt to imprve work or if it will be in the 
end just moving 5050 to standards track. I hope for the improvements. :)

> If this could be resolved by tightening the text in the charter I would

I have a hard time to write good text for this, as I do not know how 
much limitation is needed in the charter. As said above, there is always 
uncertainty how the WG is doing the work later on.

Thanks,

   Martin