Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Loiseau lucien <> Thu, 26 September 2019 08:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5878912083F for <>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:52:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 zY1vmLggUTFF for <>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E65512083D for <>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id o12so1902092qtf.3 for <>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=x1yuTBCiv6v6hsNG2Ds2XzfVNBm73AeYSuOnUbKCF5I=; b=jEh+sYu4atwtKn6ZiWXG2VQYG8PDObNZ2MRiYIWbD3/qfiWKhSNvl0mdIbJTAmw3EH KINlYwcYytTbWNQqP0CVqZ7/sc55qCjE1FcS8MbNHGWfaaiPyBOmBvxDgf8W1YIhvU+P vM3OD1kj6rFceLCZOhyUwXY0yaumfsGoc00eAUIC61KGVV7dfYTcYcb9fSDvSx22kFJT Nj/C5qI2JQpeY8d0992WD113c6fQcdE6OQPZSsd3QGQJH2NJ8bg2mIIkWVbLyfeuQ74E VXidUnbHSzH6AdNfasy+BwfoyogDZeb1sELQwr/I3PVfQDELJbJu6m7euNWSkbT1FI+g v0xg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=x1yuTBCiv6v6hsNG2Ds2XzfVNBm73AeYSuOnUbKCF5I=; b=s/m6pa2/JkDr1lttuM9vNIQsyvAvYUYPVIeI1m5iPrP8+QNqIvWbQxUP5CARXSM8xf tn7F1UnvDBzOJKienoxPtGNBgOCxWCIG7NLQ3urRjXuBZxZlonUyAVziXRvj5TeOR3tj XQ9IST4oCbX/pDnkgTzbDqQHGvszn/iqcrwTqAVu3dfcVUgvgzs9sAg/fMyQwN6w4uqE Ljc3bvwsdHNWfdDa7T2OAG19aW/JQwZusL/uxQHmlEduJDMpGZGBv/D/v1FmgWBDIxHK wFYyIoGQf7dcEaYlALxxYV2kHkHPGpbJKTZlaqFxxRTNcEPtnCFYCuVlJhjqlHVidaCC ysSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXsngaHYcr0/2WLiebAVyCRcoYdAkRNbr0nB1a8OiycJnogEiLg 0h0veAjK6HATTBqPc9fmYtHggWDaklhUL7SWDJQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx+oWJ1d+Iy+8PN5ssuMP8Z2InpAc7j0NakRuuzUl1E8u4UaQw5ZcJZXV99XMBYN3c0hFs40ybHGfs2hRee3kA=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:82a2:: with SMTP id i31mr1629518qva.160.1569487936559; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 01:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Loiseau lucien <>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 16:52:05 +0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Carsten Bormann <>
Cc: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f0201b059370e2ca"
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 08:52:21 -0000


>From an implementation point of view it would make sense to obsolete
RFC5050 as it would make it clear that new implementation shall be done
following the BPv7 specification. It would send a clear signal that the
working group has decided to no longer support this protocol and will
instead focus its effort into developing BPv7.

Regarding the analogy with IPv4/IPv6, when IPv6 came out there were already
hundreds of millions of IPv4 users interconnected to the same network.
Today most of the existing BPv6 networks are not really "public" nor
interconnected to one another so obsoleting the RFC doesn't prevent the
administrators to simply ignore this status update and continue operating
their legacy network as usual.


On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 3:39 PM Carsten Bormann <> wrote:

> On Sep 25, 2019, at 21:52, Templin (US), Fred L <>
> wrote:
> >
> > It is the same with BPv6 and BPv7 - there is a non-negligible deployment
> of BPv6
> > that will still continue after BPv7 is published whether we say
> "obsoletes" or not.
> > There is operational experience with BPv6 that will continue onwards the
> same
> > as happened with IPv4, and that is not a bad thing.
> There will always be protocols in real world use that have been replaced
> by newer ones.
> The question here is one of expressing intent.  Is BPv7 intended to
> supersede BPv6 or not?
> I’m not talking about “deployment realities” here (heck, I still have some
> Python v2 on my system), I’m talking about intent going forward.  Either
> the intent is to sustain both versions indefinitely (with bug fixes and
> extensions still going into BPv6), or the intent is to move to BPv7.  Like
> with Python v3, which ultimately needed a strong statement (and even a
> deadline) that it is now time to stop using Python v2 (and even then, the
> Python v2 is not going to vanish from my systems magically, and there will
> likely be some people hacking v2 and keeping it alive even beyond
> 2020-01-01).
> (We don’t need a deadline here, but we need to be clear about the intent.)
> I don’t think IPv4 vs. IPv6 is a good analogy here, but if you have a
> massive infrastructure processing BPv6 bundles, it may seem to be that way
> to you.
> Grüße, Carsten
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list