Well, there isn't a delay tolerant networks working group, but the IRTF has a DTNRG ( http://irtf.org/dtnrg ).
At least one of the chairs is a "goer". If you really wanted to standardize this, wouldn't you be able to find 1-2 people on the DTNRG list who would be willing to "do the BoF thing"? I'm not saying this is definitely what you should do. There are plenty of reasons to bring something to the IETF and to not bring it. I'm only saying that it is possible. Yoav On Apr 22, 2013, at 3:12 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: > And the technology that my team is pushing would be Saratoga: > http://saratoga.sf.net > which has interoperable implementations that can do 50Mbps in perl, a decade > of operational experience in its application domain, and mature drafts. > > But this is in the transport area, and TSV has somewhat limited resources, so > it's outside the span of attention from a wg. But still worth documenting as > experimental. > > Lloyd Wood > http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ > > > ________________________________________ > From: Yoav Nir [y...@checkpoint.com] > Sent: 19 April 2013 10:02 > To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) > Cc: <wor...@ariadne.com>; <ietf@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG > Review) > > Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even > without attending, although you would need to collaborate with some people > who do go. But pushing a new technology requires team building anyway. > > The same should apply to other non-attenders who have gained some reputation. > > > On Apr 19, 2013, at 11:23 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: > >> >> and the point of your ad-hominem argument is what, exactly? >> >> Lloyd Wood >> http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Yoav Nir [y...@checkpoint.com] >> Sent: 18 April 2013 15:18 >> To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) >> Cc: wor...@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org >> Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG >> Review) >> >> Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has >> several co-authors that I recognize as current "goers". You also have a >> current draft with several co-authors, but I have no idea whether they're >> "goers" or not. Anyway, you are not a hermit. Through the RFCs and drafts >> that you have co-authored, you know people who do attend. > > > Email secured by Check Point
