[dtn-interest] Latest version of registries draft
"Scott, Keith L." <kscott@mitre.org> Thu, 25 October 2012 17:12 UTC
Return-Path: <kscott@mitre.org>
X-Original-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8BD21F892D for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.601, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_62=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2qregqpeTsKC for <dtn-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (smtpksrv1.mitre.org [198.49.146.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC0B21F8940 for <dtn-interest@irtf.org>; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpksrv1.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BA324350276; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:11:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG (imccas03.mitre.org [129.83.29.80]) by smtpksrv1.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D19814510038; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:11:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG ([169.254.1.132]) by IMCCAS03.MITRE.ORG ([129.83.29.80]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:11:47 -0400
From: "Scott, Keith L." <kscott@mitre.org>
To: Hans Kruse <kruse@ohiou.edu>, "Burleigh, Scott C (313B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie)" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Thread-Topic: Latest version of registries draft
Thread-Index: Ac2y0860tmh9vGQ+TM6yfZFZ+YHkNw==
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:11:46 +0000
Message-ID: <5EE81C5C4CFFF4418C5EAD12F49D64EE067F29C1@IMCMBX01.MITRE.ORG>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [129.83.31.55]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_005_5EE81C5C4CFFF4418C5EAD12F49D64EE067F29C1IMCMBX01MITREOR_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dtn-interest (dtn-interest@irtf.org)" <dtn-interest@irtf.org>
Subject: [dtn-interest] Latest version of registries draft
X-BeenThere: dtn-interest@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The Delay-Tolerant Networking Research Group \(DTNRG\) - Announce." <dtn-interest.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/dtn-interest>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn-interest@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn-interest>, <mailto:dtn-interest-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 17:12:00 -0000
The latest version of the registries draft (-04) is attached. The latest version that's on datatracker is the -03 version.
There are no significant technical differences between the two; the changes address Scott's previous comments below.
--keith
I think the attached address Scott's concerns below. I've submitted this but it hasn't come out yet.
Going twice...
--keith
From: Burleigh, Scott C (313B) [mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:21 PM
To: Scott, Keith L.; Hans Kruse; Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>)
Cc: Marc Blanchet (marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca<mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>)
Subject: RE: New version of LTP and CBHE registries draft (-03)
Hi, Keith and Marc. The book looks good to me. A couple of minor comments:
1. Section 2.2 - Can you remind me why we cut off the private/experimental range at (2**27) - 1 rather than (2**28) - 1? The latter - terminating the range at the maximum value that can be encoded in exactly four octets - would be more consistent with the way we've structured the other ranges.
2. Section 2.2 - Not that it matters, but SDNVs were first described in the initial drafts of the LTP specification and were later adopted for BP. It would be correct to say SDNVs "are described in Section 4.1 of the Bundle Protocol specification [RFC5050]".
3. Section 3.1 - same as comment #1. Also a small typo: there's a left parenthesis missing in the definition of the Allowable Values for the Node Number.
4. Section 3.2 - same typo as in 3.1.
5. Good idea adding a registry for administrative record types; this will be useful.
Scott
From: Scott, Keith L. [mailto:kscott@mitre.org]<mailto:[mailto:kscott@mitre.org]>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:26 AM
To: Hans Kruse; Burleigh, Scott C (313B); Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie<mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>)
Cc: Marc Blanchet (marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca<mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>)
Subject: New version of LTP and CBHE registries draft (-03)
All,
You graciously agreed to review the LTP and CBHE registries draft at the Mountain View dtnrg meeting.
Marc and I have a new version which I just posted and copies are attached.
Best Regards,
--keith
- [dtn-interest] Latest version of registries draft Scott, Keith L.