[e2e] end of interest -- BP metadata / binary vs text

Rajesh Krishnan rkrishnan at comcast.net
Sat May 10 12:22:21 PDT 2008


> ... the Bundle Protocol aren't network protocols...
> really session layers (well, the BP's always compared to email,
> and an email message can be thought of as a session?). 

Granted this matches the viewpoint presented in RFC 5050 of BP's
(non-threatening ;) relationship to TCP/IP.

By including forwarding and dynamic routing (L3?), retransmissions (L4?
and L2?), and persistent storage and application metadata tagging (L7?)
concerns within the same protocol, BP does not fit harmoniously at L5 of
the TCP/IP Internet, IMHO.  This challenge to traditional layering is
precisely what I find most fascinating about DTN.

With the CLA/BP split, there is still layering in DTN; just that the
layering is not congruent to conventional TCP/IP layering.  Effectively,
DTN/BP seems to relate to TCP/IP more or less the same way IP looks at
other network technologies.  At least that is my interpretation of
DTN/BP as an overlay abstraction (TCP/IP is relevant only as expedient
means for early deployment.  ;)

I am speaking only for myself here (not past or present employers or
funding agencies or IRTF WGs), and this thread ought to migrate to
dtn-interest perhaps.

Best Regards,

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list