<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [e2e] end to end arguments in systems design</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>On 2007-12-6, at 19:14, ext Lloyd Wood wrote:<BR>
>> Two examples that spring to mind are in the output of the IRTF Delay <BR>
>> Tolerant Networking (DTN) research group - the DTN bundle protocol <BR>
>> (now published as RFC5050) and the Licklider transport protocol <BR>
>> (pending).<BR>
>><BR>
>> Yes, these protocols are being published as IRTF experimental<BR>
><BR>
> Thanks for clarifying. I was worried for a minute that you were <BR>
> referring to transport area standards track protocols.<BR>
<BR>
Consider our moving Saratoga from DTNRG to TSVWG and<BR>
draft-wood-tsvwg-saratoga-00 (as discussed with you in Chicago)<BR>
a vote of confidence in the transport area and its processes.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> (And the rest of your email clarifies that you're concerned about the <BR>
> inner workings of DTNRG and what impact that has on their Experimental <BR>
> RFCs, and not on the workings of IETF WGs in this space. But shouldn't <BR>
> you bring this up on the DTNRG list, rather than that of a the E2E RG?)<BR>
<BR>
My previous email summarised months of bringing this to the<BR>
DTNRG.<BR>
<BR>
L.<BR>
<BR>
<<A HREF="http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/">http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/</A>><L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk><BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>