Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <> Fri, 20 September 2019 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E64120930 for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 skOvk4LtdziN for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:49:57 -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 93E751208BC for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id x8KHnuEr186252; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:49:56 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=InSight1906; bh=nIxlGDW8eRjw7RN81BFaTzXrO91scx1a21VWS4KPlq8=; b=zQcjHDSFG2m85hQLSpVKBG6pgWdKiVsdNHYOv3k1jzdK6+nXgw67GKWNwBYAptxkSFrD tjhfwNzgY6vPl3fGhdpERxgJ5IJTqtbJjXYaNTn7DJe9W4BrvIKYjeKODJEYmR8ljHtV +FN0o7t7LJbdCz/5YUeqQsbXxettaB618l1PlhquXyVkyWHIk2WaDMYrjqn3MMoGYsDz gr1LTaF8GeJoz1pPw0FaSG2+gBP+WDMLEAAIy4SjxBnHJEeV+2CkusAYRsbnqmx+3/w/ ZL3Ff3zMkkn0bkT+9p8oa4Su4k6sEdacHZB723drWU0e29N9fXu3N09Ge4ATCqABbf9q 5w==
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2v3v9c99rk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:49:56 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp50.RES.AD.JPL ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id x8KHntMG030430 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:49:55 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp50.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:898c::8095:898c) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:49:55 -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; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:49:55 -0700
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <>
To: Rick Taylor <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
Thread-Index: AQHVb8zJ4yFYQLaGbkWRYSuGB6CGYqc0zaoA
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:49:55 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: []
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-09-20_06:, , 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=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1909200150
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:50:06 -0000

If I understand correctly, it sounds like choosing not to mark RFC5050 as obsolete would commit the DTN WG to considering alignment with BPv6 (as well as BPv7) in all future deliberations on DTN standards.  I think that would be a troublesome constraint on the working group.

We've done a lot of good work with BPv6, and existing BPv6 deployments certainly must continue to be supported.  However, I don't think that support necessarily has to extend to the development and standardization of new BPv6 features.

The BPv7 specification, together with bundle-in-bundle encapsulation, is an improved protocol design that encompasses a superset of BPv6 capabilities.  Migrating existing BPv6 deployments to BPv7 will not be effortless, but I think the investment will be amply repaid over the next few years.

So on this reasoning I support the IETF 105 consensus to obsolete RFC5050.


-----Original Message-----
From: dtn <> On Behalf Of Rick Taylor
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 9:02 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Hi All,

During the DTN interim meeting on Sept 18th, there was a discussion on making RFC5050 obsolete or not. This discussion also happened at IETF
105 and the consensus of the room was to obsolete RFC5050.
This consensus was not formally called and verified on the mailing list afterwards (although minutes were posted), and so this is the purpose of this email.

It is well understood by the working group that there is existing investment in RFC5050 implementations and installations, and that these will not immediately move to BPv7 if RFC5050 is marked as obsolete. 
However, by doing so a strong signal is sent to industry that the working group considers BPv7 as the replacement for RFC5050, and that future effort by the working group will be directed solely at BPv7. 
This would not automatically preclude any work around supporting moving from RFC5050 to BPv7 or interoperability, but such work would not be considered a priority.

If the working group does not choose to mark RFC5050 as obsolete, we are committing to maintain it as a suitable target for convergence layers, addressing schemes, routing and management protocols, etc. that may be standardised in the future by the working group.

Hence, here is the request: Should draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis obsolete RFC5050?


Rick & Marc
dtn mailing list