IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-13

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Tue, 30 July 2019 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 87EF3120144; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
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 H8yczvEvc4Kf; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 2D73912013D; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 x6UDFU4L117113; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:19:18 -0700
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=LOJcHGbQZMw2QX7Yn8QaICmpHl2qWEkiZF5uRC9HvdE=; b=YKoW7ayRaG+oioaPuQ3yaDpijTnH1O5LcXZr3OCmQNn83VMDwfUXGCMLDKszRVdggJEK cP18wO8OfsN4wxfQWjR0NIKriQ54PntmGWrm/uBz6kqR+858dJmWR9DZymUjmEGdlozO 9TSBsY0L9kagaFMYx4Z5GOftBSVpExxEP5WZQIuYtzlizt/ZLVtNq6po1hyW9qY954z1 6ocj7717MIputSm5EsDFATImu/8s9jPgJPBnoX4GkbLnNJTuLVN538nI5uGNJAIIKv+o k44vQPYj1ia3J0N07avhEhFM/wKSgiJND0WPxKxifK/ayWdrWvYJAb2Ob7keTGpFkvWj Ew==
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (altphysenclup02.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.53]) by ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP id 2u25qyjeb1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:19:18 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp60.RES.AD.JPL (ap-embx16-sp60.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.141]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id x6UDJHjO032762 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:19:18 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp60.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:898d::8095:898d) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:19:17 -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; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 06:19:17 -0700
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>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-13
Thread-Index: AdUzOQfkywWzmEnHT4iyH8+qUympAQJeKWzwAcNA3QAAv5qYAAAG/2og
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:19:17 +0000
Message-ID: <1f9c3560cc3b48a0ae2ce1610ebb30ad@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <HE1PR0701MB25224DF64B2B60A0C655E1CE95F50@HE1PR0701MB2522.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <bee906661cb24e8a9b4430c811b76203@jpl.nasa.gov> <HE1PR0701MB2522C96D2F5D5B60A045649695C00@HE1PR0701MB2522.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <4cd5f46f2b7a6da49aecd264dcf5dcaf512e0538.camel@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4cd5f46f2b7a6da49aecd264dcf5dcaf512e0538.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-sp60.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.141]
X-Source-Sender: scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-07-30_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=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1907300140
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/G1jhc8dsIk_O22Rp7n81FSkf-MY>
Subject: Re: [dtn] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-13
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: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:19:25 -0000

Perfect.  I will make update the draft accordingly and aim to get it posted by sometime Thursday.  Thanks, Magnus.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 2:57 AM
To: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org; dtn@ietf.org; Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dtn] AD evaluation of draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-13

Hi,

I looked at the attached changes and here are some comments. Note, I
found some additional editorial issues that should be addressed. 

1. Section 2: Instead of using the home made boiler plate I would
suggest that you use RFC 8174 and its proposed boiler plate.

2. Section 4.1.3: Bit 8. The Manifest block extension. I forsee that
people will have issues with the lack of normative reference. So either
normatively reference the manifest specification, alternatively mark it
reserved, and a informative note that it is inteded for this manifest
block. Then have the manifest block assign itself this bit when
actually published?

3. Section 4.3: 

This section has additional normative reference requirements. As
currently formulated it most definitely makes teh Manifest block a
normative reference. But also the other extension blocks needs
references. If that can be informative references or needs to be
normative ones depends on and needs a detailed look on each. 

So BIB and BCB is simple to normatively reference and synchronization
of their publication is not an issue. 

Manifest I lack the view of in what status it is in. However, there are
no active WG draft on it? 

What are the status of the Data Label Block? 

I would think that making an informative reference and simply note that
they are reserved and future assignment needs to have matching purposes
with BPv6 as the name space is shared is way forward. 

4. Section 10. As discussed at meeting, there is a benefit in having
this docuemnt take over the registries that RFC 6255 defines to gather
the rules in one place and ensure that they are aligned. 

The rest of the changes appears fine to me. 

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email