[15:00:59] --- demmer@jabber.org has joined
[15:06:39] --- demmer@jabber.org has left
[15:06:57] --- demmer has joined
[15:09:25] --- csmall has joined
[15:10:38] <demmer> hi
[15:10:51] --- deeTeeEnn has joined
[15:11:01] --- jmmikkel has joined
[15:11:05] <csmall> hey
[15:11:26] <demmer> who's deeTeeEnn
[15:11:26] <demmer> ?
[15:13:00] --- deeTeeEnn has left
[15:13:31] <csmall> Mike -
[15:14:04] <demmer> ?
[15:14:19] <csmall> Have you tested the new code against old code for interoperability?
[15:14:22] <demmer> um
[15:14:29] <demmer> no :)
[15:14:36] <demmer> but all i did was move code around
[15:14:41] <demmer> so it "should" be compatibile
[15:14:44] <demmer> are you having problems?
[15:15:21] <csmall> No, we haven't tried it yet; I was working to make this an interoperability discussion.
[15:15:47] <csmall> Are Joerg and Scott Burleigh running code based on DTN2, or did they start from scratch?
[15:16:14] <demmer> from scratch
[15:16:16] <demmer> i see :)
[15:16:24] <demmer> so all i did
[15:16:27] <demmer> was move code out of the BundleProtoco
[15:16:32] <demmer> class and put it into individual
[15:16:35] <demmer> BlockProcessor classes for
[15:16:39] <demmer> the different types of bundle blocks
[15:16:54] <demmer> so except for some simple bug
[15:16:54] <demmer> s
[15:17:01] <demmer> which may exist (though i'm working through them)
[15:17:12] <demmer> i don't think the actual code to format / parse has really changed substantially
[15:17:26] <csmall> This will be fun. (For some value of fun.)
[15:18:10] <csmall> OK, looks like nobody else is going to show up (at least nobody from MITRE, due to red tape). Shall we call it a day?
[15:18:43] --- sftcd-at-it has joined
[15:18:53] <sftcd-at-it> Hi all
[15:18:59] <demmer> sure
[15:19:07] <demmer> actually -- it turns out that
[15:19:13] <demmer> kevin and joerg are at teh same thing
[15:19:20] <demmer> i kinda remembe them saying they wouldn't clal in
[15:19:28] <demmer> so chris, i'm happy to take this time
[15:19:31] <demmer> to chat about the BP changes
[15:19:41] <demmer> but it doesn't seem like we really have a quorum to talk about interop
[15:19:58] <sftcd-at-it> guess not - was there any particular thiing to cover wrt interop
[15:20:21] <demmer> not sure
[15:20:29] <demmer> i don't have a clear plan for what we're actually doing yet
[15:20:31] <demmer> but am happy to wing it
[15:21:06] <sftcd-at-it> winging should be ok - I guess we allocate an order to try the pairwise stuff and then go for it
[15:21:24] <csmall> And just do dtnsend / dtnrecv?
[15:21:31] <demmer> sure
[15:21:42] <demmer> yeah -- actually dtncat will probably be better
[15:21:44] <demmer> than dtnrect
[15:21:48] <demmer> er dtnrecv
[15:21:56] <demmer> since the latter just throws away the payload
[15:22:00] <sftcd-at-it> Pete and Susan can do a call tomorrow - would the BBN folks want that? If so can you setup a bridge?
[15:22:01] <csmall> ok
[15:22:19] <csmall> (ok to Mike -- I have to look into setting up a conference call)
[15:22:33] <csmall> I will look into a conference call number and send mail to dtn-dev.
[15:22:34] <sftcd-at-it> If there're only 4 then syple may be ok by itself - I've done 3
[15:22:47] <demmer> i can call this time tomorrow
[15:22:53] <sftcd-at-it> great - sorry again about tihs evening
[15:22:56] <demmer> i also should be able to set up an intel bridge
[15:23:04] <demmer> but i can't today since i'm not in the office
[15:23:21] <demmer> but my qn
[15:23:25] <demmer> is whether we have
[15:23:30] <demmer> quyorum to talk about interop
[15:23:35] <demmer> without joerg or scott
[15:23:46] <sftcd-at-it> yep not much more to say all right
[15:24:13] <csmall> Let's shift this to email as at least half of the interested parties can't connect to Jabber
[15:24:26] <sftcd-at-it> good - later then, S.
[15:24:30] --- sftcd-at-it has left
[15:24:34] --- csmall has left
[15:24:40] --- demmer has left
[15:24:41] --- jmmikkel has left