IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn] bpbis

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Sat, 03 August 2019 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91BD120142 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=viagenie-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3f7SMyUXQ9JB for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 640E512013F for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id 44so46411369qtg.11 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 14:01:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=viagenie-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version; bh=stcFH6D/I3odBhTbfnGZWy27GvEBvXnjdln/FnsSfIs=; b=xFtch6NlwkYH6iS4yJ2FR76X0aL4jOc5WkqafUzmzeiC97SJ/ejBubSS2sfMkBYW5f 6UbwLlIO8PDwkI9S61GY033DFpo0VApBHgjNGSxnRNmr0KDepj4D23aHhYHli/+xRdmz 4VNVfPaXOXgsJznvKD4yytrztM26pxkZy4czLfRZ9GcADfhFi7ikaysj50nJtgaOXdeX 4hmvQKVTF4NsJrrVYmWATOrVgh2wsYt9OWy5NLMkAeK9WC05Ago7Qkr89SxRHVY+9SYb ii3LEtB+EeQfS3p3YwatZ5Lfn7i0fwpSBE3oB1PVQQjWQtrMbJH5j+kBw6+2aDwMEw+p L5rA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version; bh=stcFH6D/I3odBhTbfnGZWy27GvEBvXnjdln/FnsSfIs=; b=Xh8ksoFl7m5zqpi2CMSUSrndZ6+4wSVWFc9xukNq10F+b55WXsN+GOfANwHAI11+ar H/LhRL9xjnoTnSSDkQNG0NRCqX1aH07OViAxQX7q3YJZPv/wo1hW0o7sotraclfc6x7t KYket+DzAKDQcXFovlBm7QHphfYpj/E1okZnjgguoonIdjAd+aI3BV7KXrOo5EKKtlfg L4XVkWus+J65Lo2XStt5pTUg0bVjBu/qKI3SwxyiTG2PzgBfQR50rV8h1a8/Woox33jr MkJIVn47CX8YCUEdjSbRT4tXO81B4goHeXbjLjIY8gE2ae3TZLHoKgnstrbB1fUIcBaX eXsg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXks8BtHGYJbbvXaPNifhow9e7iw12oCnKd9qWYAPePouBi4nkP f9pf1bduor9H82P7yvGcaYSmaw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwkyuzrZWFxgWHv2r0c3UeH6GxnVeCZ6NAu3ZvY9adKPZvZv7j0rJEXPzKx8Dl5uq50E+vPkw==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:1441:: with SMTP id b1mr101218393qvy.218.1564866109266; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 14:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.194] (modemcable016.82-162-184.mc.videotron.ca. [184.162.82.16]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h40sm44246561qth.4.2019.08.03.14.01.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 03 Aug 2019 14:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 17:01:46 -0400
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.5r5635)
Message-ID: <468EF36D-9B5C-497F-8363-1543BE0B73D3@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <a0e8bf30b24f4620bd05c790b6fa3271@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <a0e8bf30b24f4620bd05c790b6fa3271@jpl.nasa.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/AhqA25iPqDlXNvQnVjOE50ijdDg>
Subject: Re: [dtn] bpbis
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 21:01:53 -0000

Thanks Scott. I suggest you submit the draft as it is. Submitting has 
the property to enable people to use diff or all other tools available, 
instead of your marked up PDF (which is great, but people may want to 
use something else).

Regards, Marc.

On 3 Aug 2019, at 16:45, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:

> Hi.  Attached is a proposed revision of the bpbis specification that I 
> think addresses all the changes we agreed on in Montreal and in email 
> to date.  Some notes:
>
> 1.  I have arbitrarily inserted language reflecting the direction in 
> which I think WG sentiment is taking us on the questions of maximum 
> hop limit, BPSEC mandate, and the CRC option.  I will be glad to 
> change this language as we reach consensus on those questions.
>
> 2.  In the course of transcribing the registry rules from RFC6255 into 
> section 10 I realized that in some cases the registry values we have 
> defined in bpbis are different enough from existing registries to 
> motivate the creation of new registries after all.  The proposed new 
> registries are defined and RFC 6255 is obsoleted.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 9:52 AM
> To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] bpbis: maximum hop limit
>
> Hello,
>   from our AD review of BPBis, there was a question on should there be 
> a maximum hop limit, and if yes, what value should it be. There was 
> some discussion today during the meeting, and it went towards 
> specifying a maximum hop limit in BPbis, but there was almost no 
> discussion on the possible value. So please provide your input here by 
> replying to the list.
>
> =======
> Should there be a maximum hop limit in BPbis?  (expected answer: yes 
> or
> no)
>
> If yes, what value should it be?  (expected answer: an unsigned 
> integer
> value)
>
> Rationale for your answers?
>
> =========
>
> Thanks, Marc, co-chair.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email