[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] the state of protocol R&D?

I'm kind of thinking more like the Command and Control Research Program 
(dodccrp.org) - which sponsors(ed?) a lot of network centric warfare 
related work, published the C2 Journal, and still seems to organize the 
ICCRTS and CCRTS conferences - lots of work on network interoperability 
for warfighting applications.  There's also used to be a pretty active 
community around distributed simulation protocols. Somehow, one would 
think that either IRTF would be providing some kind of broader-based 
focal point.

Eggert, Lars wrote:
> Hi,
> On 2014-5-25, at 4:18, Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>> Hmmm.  Should the IRTF attempt a kind of open-source listing of places
>> and activities that could be classed as 'networking research'?
> so that would certainly be something that could be done under the IRTF umbrella. We have wikis and can get other tooling set up as needed.
> But: As with anything, it requires someone to feel strongly enough about it to spend their own time on it and make it happen. Unless you mean "I want do to X in the IRTF" when you write "the IRTF should", it's unlikely that anyone else will do it.
> Lars
> (as IRTF chair)
> PS: irtf-discuss at irtf.org might be a better list for discussing this, however.
>> For new protocols, I've found it helpful to have an open-to-anyone
>> registry.  Claim that you support the protocol and you get listed.  (cf,
>> http://dkim.org/deploy).  The registry does not vet claimants; just
>> lists them.  This gives interested parties a place for finding
>> implementations or consultant.
>> It probably would be easy and probably would be helpful, for irtf.org to
>> set up something similar, for research, such as a "Community Research
>> Activities" trac wiki.
>> d/
>> -- 
>> Dave Crocker
>> Brandenburg InternetWorking
>> bbiw.net

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra