Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] IANA section on bpbis

"Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca> Thu, 24 October 2019 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
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 1E097120812 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:48:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=viagenie-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.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 6oV_gcEmniCX for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com (mail-wm1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6560012000F for <dtn@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id v6so1344846wmj.0 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=viagenie-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nmERdFPRUG806Ac8U8bMpGyLdNp0lAZ7lPY1wNCEovw=; b=bhi026v4p8WaqsdFoB+YWL9P7K3/t9GNxnRKMJsJqzNhxbi727Apk8dqW2Rq7atvkm QiuoPj/g70ob+sDyloKiawrjrImyMEwX1swhuPUQB+Rz0kYXEQrrr6InjnonlMhjyvbN 5VvdfJvK2QAIdTD3aWYufE1Yg8vl1gvoa4e+GN5UIlF4WuhWozBunOlCCIMKlWwexoJ1 nRGWJDxP2S83VF79kUjGeA5exAClivzS2qd3dlLTXOu2C2Ur2ZLLahFJ+qQAq6Tg/G8D +j+GSQsjtbNckex5d10nZ6ZVgd8IXxGgsMgw4H8vP9h6Lb7CCjp9BoSbxxpXfiggPYcT vzQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=nmERdFPRUG806Ac8U8bMpGyLdNp0lAZ7lPY1wNCEovw=; b=uQ+Iznn4+PiMA5+bKuJkTlEElub7qBUYnly8F9EW9R5nTTYda8m36CjBv95+Fse0oa guT0yi4t2Wci6PMZEjl12Gwiwv7YpYLgIr4a6f1KtSIt5ri5kfGP8RPcfTRRSlXq6GtP 0jSRP8Y2ybKMXXlIoP83o3D939bamZWcZTGHboyAMcpu4yKUmkPvJqxDn0n+qN1EfI72 5YC37iXKmZOMNvFuzYtdFhA1f6y3EhUu7ncgry0T/HlmZ57rUrqruxASuwlYRjseR5wI VfC63Jrzff5z3bV8vPXiLBrRhX+14KuLsz6k0j1QMTJSNkEKjnWi0MgysZApvP1Yi7EK DDgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUfqtYWq8o5QW8HcKUEu/KgQQ+eh7X8d8ry7toZ+J//ss6QeLe2 ZMuLRyioxwEQmg8i9yE+QahYjA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxxWVyOkpZdVDNb3jxp7K/dq4rwjDXCfcRBb0uANeB6Uzbb1Ri760frq7GJiFl/wggwDDCu3w==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:f60d:: with SMTP id w13mr3569014wmc.150.1571899678516; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.194] ([82.195.75.196]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x12sm14479322wru.93.2019.10.23.23.47.57 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org, dtn@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:47:56 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13r5655)
Message-ID: <C5CD6808-A62F-4C2E-96DD-52D52A3C8B65@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <ef5dac649278489fafbf76564e6e5806@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <446672A9-FE07-4C98-A718-B7AF7283A324@viagenie.ca> <644976936e18d8c9e9831ae8d289dfaaa70d05d9.camel@ericsson.com> <D10B88C7-4321-43C2-A33B-A7D7D3EF0210@viagenie.ca> <40551dcfdc944b3e976b97d3aaa84220@jpl.nasa.gov> <39E810BE-4358-46A5-A8C7-FB689670A740@viagenie.ca> <ef5dac649278489fafbf76564e6e5806@jpl.nasa.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/LIoPr9YZ6uXSa4rkxNY_27Ppkog>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] IANA section on bpbis
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, 24 Oct 2019 06:48:03 -0000

On 24 Oct 2019, at 7:00, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:

> Personally, I don't see a coherent set of enum values for the two 
> specifications as a significant advantage, as mapping between the two 
> should be trivial and is in any case a very minor aspect of gatewaying 
> between the protocols.

sure. the other advantage of having a common registry is that it is a 
single place to look for semantics with values already defined, 
targeting more consistency between the different versions.  if we end up 
with BP7.1 with slight changes, the common registry will be a bigger 
win.

Marc.

> But I will of course go with whatever the WG decides.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>;
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:11 PM
> To: Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>;
> Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org; dtn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] IANA section on bpbis
>
> On 24 Oct 2019, at 0:35, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:
>
>> On re-reading these proposals for merging registries more closely, I
>> realize that they actually constitute significant changes to the BPv7
>> protocol specification.  Notably, the proposal to merge the bit flag
>> values for bundle processing control flags would require that each
>> BPv7 primary block contain a 3-byte control flags field -- rather 
>> than
>> a 2-byte field -- to accommodate 6 bits of BPv6 class of service
>> indication that the WG has agreed not to include in the BP
>> specification; we will be wasting 1 byte of every bundle to preserve
>> bit flag position compatibility with RFC 5050.
>
> I think one byte is not a big deal. It also provides more room for 
> future assignments. Considering that I’ve seen DTN bundle payloads 
> containing non-compressed XML or deployments sending Video over RTP 
> over DTN, I think this one byte is not an issue.
>
>>
>> Also the block numbers assigned to extension blocks are changed for
>> compatibility with RFC 5050; not a huge deal, but this will
>> temporarily break all existing implementations of BPv7.  (The other
>> changes are less disruptive.)
>
> well. In fact, the proposed numbers by the author in an internet-draft 
> are never garanteed until IANA creates/updates the registry when the 
> RFC is in the RFC-editor queue (i.e. after IESG approval). Changing an 
> enum value in an implementation is a question of one minute. There is 
> to my knowledge no deployment of BP7 yet, nor commercial products of 
> BP7.
> However, having a coherent set of enum values for both BP6 and BP7 is 
> to me a great advantage for implementations.
>
>>
>> I can certainly go ahead and make all these changes, but I want to
>> confirm with the WG that this is what we want to do.
>
> let’s see what others think.
>
> Marc, as individual.
>
>
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>;
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:45 AM
>> To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>;; Burleigh,
>> Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>;
>> Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org; dtn@ietf.org
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dtn] IANA section on bpbis
>>
>> Magnus and Scott,
>>   all fine, please proceed!
>>
>>   Scott, please make sure to review not only the IANA Considerations
>> section, but also the text in the referred sections so everything is
>> in sync.
>>
>> Marc.
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2019, at 13:23, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed your proposal Marc. I think most of it works but
>>> there are  few things I do wonder over or think should be addressed.
>>>
>>>
>>> 10.6: This is a BP specific registry. As this encodes the URI 
>>> schemes
>>> into the
>>> protocol in a short form. This is not the same as the URI scheme
>>> registry.
>>>
>>> Thus, I don't see how it can be skipped.
>>>
>>> But, maybe the name of the registry should be "Bundle Protocol URI
>>> Scheme Type
>>> Registry".
>>>
>>> 10.7 I already responded seperately to Scott's question. But, I 
>>> think
>>> the WG do
>>> need to update the IANA Registration of the DTN URI scheme
>>> considering
>>> that it
>>> is provisional and lacks a correct reference to its actual
>>> syntactical
>>> definition.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------