Skip to main content

Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking
charter-ietf-dtn-02

Yes

Zaheduzzaman Sarker

No Objection

Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Murray Kucherawy
Roman Danyliw
(Martin Duke)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Robert Wilton)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01-02 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve of this charter?"

Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Yes
Erik Kline
No Objection
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2021-11-30 for -01-02) Sent
I am puzzled by merging two different aspects in a single category: "Operations, Administration and Management (OAM), and Key Management". The first one is clearly OPS but the second one is probably more in SEC area.

What is the meaning of QoS and QoS indication in such networks ?

Should there be a collaboration with intarea WG about the tunnels ?

While there is a "Management Architecture and Protocols" milestone, there are none about "operations and administration" (to fully fit the OAM category).

Some nits ?:
- s/in production by government and commercial organizations world-wide./in production by governments and commercial organizations world-wide./
- s/Operations, Administration and Management/Operations, Administration, and Management/
- s/best practices learned from existing deployment./best practices learned from existing deployments./
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2021-12-01 for -01-02) Sent
    This architecture will define a standard model
    for the forwarding process of a Bundle Process Agent, providing an
    informational reference point for further specifications.

There seems to be some mismatch between "standard model" and
"informational reference point".  If it's not intended to be in a
standards-track document, perhaps "reference model" would avoid the
difficulty?

  * The definition of architecture and protocols in the areas of Operations,
  Administration and Management (OAM), and Key Management

(nit) I think "an architecture" is needed here.

    Additional extensions to the Bundle Protocol, additional Security Context
    definitions for BPSec, and new Convergence Layer adaptors will be
    considered on a case-by-case basis by the working group.

Can we say anything about what factors will go into these considerations
(other than, presumably, WG interest)?  Will the reponsible AD need to
be involved in the decision to undertake such work?
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-02) Not sent

                            
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-02) Not sent

                            
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01-02) Not sent