Subject: [dtn] Pete Resnick's Block on charter-ietf-dtn-00-03: (with BLOCK)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:40:28 -0700

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dtn-00-03: Block

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Martin asked that I update my position to supply the suggested text, and
to explicitly say "Block" so that we can discuss this on the call.

I do not understand the "Problem Statement/etc." work item for this WG.
This work is the result of an IRTF RG doing a lot of work and research
and there are already existing experimental protocol documents. Coming up
with a new "Problem Statement/etc." document seems like a perfect way for
this WG to rathole and waste an incredible amount of time. If you're
going to update the protocol documents to conform to implementation
experience, there's no need to re-explore what problem you're trying to
solve. Unless there's a darn good reason to take on that work item, I
really think it needs to be removed. Suggest:

OLD
   Therefore, the purpose of the working group is to document the new
   use cases and requirements and to update the base specifications. The
   group shall not endeavour to change the underlying architecture or
   the bundle protocol principle.

   Work items are:

   o An informational "DTN Revision Problem Statement, Use Cases,
     Requirements and Development Strategy" document

   o Updates to RFC5050, convergence layer RFCs, security(RFC6257), as
     standard track documents.

   o A registry for DTN Service Identifiers

   The DTNWG must reach rough consensus on the "DTN Revision Problem
   Statement, Use Cases, Requirements and Development Strategy" document
   before the working group is permitted to work on any updates to the
   protocol specifications.

NEW
   Therefore, the purpose of this working group is to update the base
   specifications in light of implementation experience. The group shall
   do a review of deployment problems and lessons learned, come to
   consensus on the issues to be addressed in the base protocol
   documents, and update the specifications accordingly. The group shall
   not endeavour to change the underlying architecture or the bundle
   protocol principle.

   Work items are:

   o Updates to RFC5050, convergence layer RFCs, security(RFC6257), as
     standard track documents.

   o A registry for DTN Service Identifiers

END

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:14:54 +0200

Hi Pete, all,

Thanks for updating the ballot!

I agree to the new text but one thing is missing. We will have the 
chance to talk about this on the call, but here is some first text as 
basis for the discussions:

The first work item in the OLD part is not well phrased and the 
intention of this should actually be that the WG comes to consensus 
first on what items they want to work on and that this going to be 
documented. I believe that I did recommend them this (or along these 
lines) right after the bof.

The reason for this is that the list of desired changes in (starting 
from slide 7)
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-dtnwg-5.pdf
is pretty long.

Further, it is clear that not all changes are needed by now or by any 
use case required right now or in the near future.

Marc proposed to add this as work item:
  - "Use Cases and Requirements to Revise DTN Specifications" 
Informational Document.

But this isn't capturing the intention of documenting the agreed list of 
changes to be worked on.

I would say that the very first work item should be this:
- "Use Cases for evolving the DTN specifications and list of work items 
to be worked on"

Talk to you soon

   Martin
- "Use Cases and Requirements to Revise DTN Specifications" 
Informational Document.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 11:58:39 -0500

On 10/16/14 10:14 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> - "Use Cases for evolving the DTN specifications and list of work 
> items to be worked on"

As we said on the call, so long as that doesn't require a published 
document to come out of it, that's fine with me.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 21:08:55 +0200

> document to come out of it, that's fine with me.

I am ok with that.

There will be an update of the charter text soon.

Thanks,

   Martin