Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking
charter-ietf-dtn-02
Yes
No Objection
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
Martin Duke No Objection
Murray Kucherawy No Objection
Robert Wilton No Objection
Roman Danyliw No Objection
Éric Vyncke No Objection
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 steering group member) No Objection
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 Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection