Re: [dtn] Obosoleting indicators in drafts

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Thu, 16 January 2020 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
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 C6BDB120074; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:19:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jpl.nasa.gov
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 sUwjFrXuIr-g; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov (ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.112]) (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 3586E12006E; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:19:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) by ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 00GDF4RH175713; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:18:57 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jpl.nasa.gov; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=InSight1906; bh=nKJHTPWJE4XeT1aDjq81MOmPfjG1pbvnxi8GXss0MJg=; b=YNiPfSR4e9jxZ2TLzkqtIlz7XFrJLVCO+5pP3xmIvrnVtyGUwJpmuy8gKZDUXUuxmZm3 +kHBZftzvzHZhjJfNSw6OLpXlgRwOo+om9udgXZROvzOJno1NSNlNzOpMe9fJQx+lIgG utALHDd53kxVFRrLGFEkxNVr/feRGxwbcke8eesC67oEKXfRudZDczJgZnxJHLmsxQ6D udx4B2Yehtd/nu55bVdQ/pi/HiTLBdhbZdir0vtJ5SIcRwPpd+Vs5ruxAs1kJz3CHw7T i6QXe/LurDJghyzSbrDkqZLcTr8gl93trdlhTaPGi+cJ/Vh9qujOGsqJU2y1OuVwcqtx Ow==
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (altphysenclup02.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.53]) by ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP id 2xhvanwh06-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:18:56 -0800
Received: from ap-embx16-sp30.RES.AD.JPL (ap-embx16-sp30.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.85]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id 00GDItKF029738 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:18:56 -0800
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp30.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8955::8095:8955) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 05:18:55 -0800
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, 16 Jan 2020 05:18:55 -0800
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec@ietf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Obosoleting indicators in drafts
Thread-Index: AQHVzFQiaTFuIwXbPEOwter7KfTNVaftQtrw
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:18:55 +0000
Message-ID: <779fa74cdab24bfe897c859cb9da27dc@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <7dfc41a49318263d950f49f59c1eff48a8315706.camel@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <7dfc41a49318263d950f49f59c1eff48a8315706.camel@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [207.151.104.72]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: ap-embx16-sp30.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.85]
X-Source-Sender: scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2020-01-16_04:, , 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=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-2001160113
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/EX35uRQoqYfFgX-Q1sBNb2-2Ty4>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Obosoleting indicators in drafts
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: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:19:06 -0000

Thanks, Magnus, I will put whatever words are needed wherever they need to go in order to get us finally moving forward, but I would like not to have to cycle through this process too many more times.  My understanding has been that the bpv7 document cannot "obsolete" RFC5050, it can only *request* that IRTF do so; I think that's the sense of https://irtf.org/policies/cross-stream-updates.html and yesterday's message from the WG chairs.  But if the "obsoletes" header will pass the nits check then I will happily try once again.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> 
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:03 AM
To: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec@ietf.org; dtn@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Obosoleting indicators in drafts

Hi Authors,

With the WG chairs decision regarding the consenus on obsoleting the earlier
documents I want to get some form things correct in the documents.

1. Please use the header line "Obsoletes: RFCXXXX" as tooling uses this.

2. Abstract and Introduction do need to say that they are obsoleting some
documents and list them. It is fine to note that this are IRTF Stream documents
for extra clarity here. 

3. Scott added a sentence about requesting Obsoletion from IRTF. That is also
fine, but please do that in a separate statement that has an RFC-editor note
that the text shall be removed prior to publication. As the request does not
matter when the document has been published, then 1 and 2. fulfills the purpose
to indicate the obsoletion and the fact that it was cross stream one. 

I am also assuming that BPSec will obsolete RFC 6257 and that TCPCL will
obsolete RFC7242. As I don't know these documents in detail, if there are any
significant function that is now defined in your documents that was defined in
another RFC then we need to consider to include that also. Here I primarily
wonder if there are parts of RFC 5050 that was moved into BPSec or TCPCLv4? The
intention here is to ensure that if one look up RFC 5050 in the future one will
get a list of all documents that defines the replacing definition. 

Great that we finally are almost ready to proceed to IESG Evaluation.
 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------