Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it> Mon, 23 September 2019 07:47 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo.caini@unibo.it>
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 B3E4A1200FE for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 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_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=liveunibo.onmicrosoft.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 l5n8rVTDFEwC for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr140132.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.14.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B14612004F for <dtn@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=e26rj/ZPSPGgyIPUPhpYuuyx/iZGtnO+ypauYo0breH+xsrdAlGW0SruYAlNiO0Y5BFEY/ZyvYFgyLXT/MwUnIFRG4fMby2YA97Qyer9D9BLoh9v6CmMflgv+eSvBFKRhN0O70x7GOqM0SvJE47CRhj71EzBri3ubH11g3zRrKQpNNrhOGxHuR4mhvhTA97QWX4kNUp7nYMd1Z/piPVT6Nx9zFmlmFia1SiQkpo3LC9cgAGkUaTfBsuQc7u6thCRQe7mecp/0urlAge6dKkx9H5Aa1CtPQEB1AqA3XgnrlBNFN2uvWWBZPtqe4AjT8xrm3Sra3e6sjYq/qz5AF0N9w==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tneGFLHFlIlhBu3VbgkXYWHaspbZsz9yZX6VG45h520=; b=D6i7qQaC7+mCdHGcTG+6S6TX9/IahrWZpikdsPmb/zSIvPbeNYxtHwlpwBYm7fue3B9IIwMIt2eTP7jKzOyu390j0nWQNVL6kJqC+w0ghJpyOMG2ureiPdO1J6rm3Gp1Mmg5fP1yRA++/dNiMQg+nsFJkQBCEyeunteK3rx22F2JdW7Vga3nWYcg42dC6hzZpZ1yc17COjAkna8euTpJW6BU0vWgHiAeB1rVlkxz2GDdtWRuby4lcvUfg6PApDOh1RDZEgsl0sb/veA5cFn8ZdwwYeqvzWEhI1i2gXs6obUbJXK65NYwIWwsS4B9bEgDo9phTnPlvO/NGQpywFmvVQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=unibo.it; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=unibo.it; dkim=pass header.d=unibo.it; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=liveunibo.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-liveunibo-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=tneGFLHFlIlhBu3VbgkXYWHaspbZsz9yZX6VG45h520=; b=P2k72j8pBC/3aMlvn+7Ib+8GPtSllA0BhH+Oh95XkQZbsgR/aQBNc8EV/1zywn5Fjq0HMwarGeYz47OWEF4keb8/LsYIMSAaYQwHpwL1Ty+fCl4xQtMI4eWrI1j9P78FKl3Ut9IO6OZd4a17hbTXmimFE5cx1ywlpRVq1Fr/WXs=
Received: from VE1PR01MB5887.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (10.255.158.160) by VE1PR01MB5502.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (20.179.232.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2284.20; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:47:23 +0000
Received: from VE1PR01MB5887.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::b13e:7ff1:b1b7:b199]) by VE1PR01MB5887.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::b13e:7ff1:b1b7:b199%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2284.023; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:47:23 +0000
From: Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it>
To: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
Thread-Index: AQHVceMiDmyvAQsVbEOIQ4+31BkKQw==
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:47:23 +0000
Message-ID: <VE1PR01MB5887B042F494A367FF6978BF87850@VE1PR01MB5887.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <ecc5ee275929440b8b70d570451219a77dc5a176.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <ecc5ee275929440b8b70d570451219a77dc5a176.camel@tropicalsto rmsoftware.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: MRXP264CA0012.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:500:15::24) To VE1PR01MB5887.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10a6:803:111::32)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=carlo.caini@unibo.it;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
x-originating-ip: [137.204.143.180]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8f84465f-deca-45ed-3407-08d73ffa453f
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600167)(711020)(4605104)(1401327)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:VE1PR01MB5502;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VE1PR01MB5502:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <VE1PR01MB550299357BA542510E1FE29687850@VE1PR01MB5502.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0169092318
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(376002)(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(53754006)(189003)(199004)(486006)(50226002)(99286004)(66556008)(2501003)(476003)(55016002)(786003)(316002)(11346002)(66476007)(33656002)(66446008)(6436002)(64756008)(561944003)(186003)(26005)(110136005)(25786009)(66066001)(8936002)(229853002)(81156014)(52536014)(81166006)(102836004)(7696005)(52116002)(74316002)(76176011)(446003)(6246003)(8676002)(5660300002)(4720700003)(66946007)(6506007)(71200400001)(386003)(14444005)(256004)(305945005)(2906002)(7736002)(478600001)(71190400001)(3846002)(44832011)(6306002)(86362001)(9686003)(6116002)(14454004)(90706001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:VE1PR01MB5502; H:VE1PR01MB5887.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: unibo.it does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 9E1Iz+4P0h5LxBnTIGyjF/H3E7sxvUSgBYW/nUsCLJ9Hag8MNafsAGcU702cUK1Iy/LDTBw+3yHtCYhGjIxOJyi2a8eofrmpZvQovngNJq05besVJ63JXxk+NkaA/XVZVbVgfiyb1S3Hwy67dpnxoRJcbx3Xfo1lWC88crj6UkKt3mHNovLcZyJFlF9kw9leNJ+YIrDN67FZjkJBWkZujXjvkFEgEjmb5m/9RNylAzjr+jgNxGnKrqyubUVPSOETyKIzAGEW6MPjkKWQPrj66phay5oJzenlldwQlAgrUnHwQmBhJrlyc8D5femdMtjJu6h+gF/w5R7TRviaRdiDB8K7NpFOrdQk4uVHQUWc33JJ7uGqVJ9jzUQcM1cgJ6yfYmpa3fld2hcQM4eDV+VAtnvdpB9VA/ejbsuMW6NtfH0=
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <C3B0E0A767B2C349BF8CBAEDF024644B@eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: unibo.it
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8f84465f-deca-45ed-3407-08d73ffa453f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Sep 2019 07:47:23.5606 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: e99647dc-1b08-454a-bf8c-699181b389ab
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: 8xpviKFQuSHM+2HjUyRv8cghWr01/w5MKkt+PytYsXyoqfa1pD4ODs6LwFBsThNmvEvTsrF8a/xF9xURfxsWZw==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1PR01MB5502
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/D_DKvv2FfNHEp__QCVorLGFGyN8>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
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: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:48:00 -0000

I agree with the proposal.
Yours,
     Carlo

At 18:02 20/09/2019, Rick Taylor wrote:
>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?
>
>Cheers,
>
>Rick & Marc
>_______________________________________________
>dtn mailing list
>dtn@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn