Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] on obsoleting RFC5050

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <> Thu, 17 October 2019 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFC21200B8; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BsjBOxNxHplE; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886E912000F; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id x9HEA7Qa116638; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:11:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=InSight1906; bh=pTq9sT2LCwkoa31Insupsp7p4hPAHk3mK3vyD1xhZLE=; b=3hsWod3peMCxoJ4zqil6e5xxC+mVry/v2lPYhZPW8iy1rHud6QTy0ENed+n+/6Aqpd1L VmeMOdr7LfCANWgjQvEXh0qRg/hYqASesk9gg0Ye+CRBl/dQQx1GzeIazDO/QpgqmXIK QL6NePYruu/F4uO1n+aUICixnimhyivHWwsUpkzhrC+K5ILDjwzhirbpVaCui6vGmWZL RLLM6O+gCINxxSY3+KenNaDO1T8VN5mxVgFON/CcE4Ew6VxV18r8JAPMxoz9YyVvoFRd KNguY3hexIPXjGDiv0zsshbArGIZJs6R8LAaxSedjhpje0/ZjDBnwVZhm2cFWO1OYJEy JA==
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2vpcgyauwm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:11:58 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id x9HEBvgR028629 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:11:58 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:11:57 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL ([fe80::4:f430:47b5:767b]) by ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL ([fe80::4:f430:47b5:767b%17]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.008; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:11:57 -0700
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <>
To: Marc Blanchet <>, DTN WG <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050
Thread-Index: AQHVhNRHkg1lI4Ubi0uhawIkvuJLuade38SA
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:11:57 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_275510110b514c82b6761957f2ddf881jplnasagov_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: []
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-17_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=930 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910170127
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] on obsoleting RFC5050
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 14:12:02 -0000

I enthusiastically support this proposal.


From: dtn <> On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:19 AM
To: DTN WG <>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050

based on the various inputs and good discussion on the mailing list regarding obsoleting RFC5050, the chairs have come to this conclusion. Please state your support or not so we can move forward.

Regards, Marc&Rick, co-chairs.

  *   RFC5050 is an experimental RFC, done in IRTF, while draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis will be a Standard track RFC, done in IETF. Different streams, different processes.
  *   we believe there is a strong consensus to not continue working on RFC5050 and not try to be backward compatible. RFC5050 implementations and deployments can continue as they see fit.
  *   IANA registries have their own life, whatever the stream or type of RFC they were created from. They can always be updated by a new RFC.
  *   Given that, we suggest the following steps:

     *   1) draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis would not obsolete RFC5050. Instead we would notify IRTF that draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis is an update of RFC5050. IRTF will decide what they want to do, if anything, with RFC5050.
     *   2) in the new version of the charter that we are currently working on, we will state clearly that there is no intent to work on or make compatible work with RFC5050 and related RFCs
     *   3) DTN working group document authors will review the IANA registries as they are today and request whatever modifications needed, which may include changing the policies, the content, the rules, …