IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 18 October 2019 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
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 BEA88120942; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Z8Mk7DMvWVYm; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (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 5174212094B; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x9IIJr0a026860; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:19:53 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-08.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.110]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x9IIJig5025703 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:19:44 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1779.2; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:19:43 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1779.002; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:19:43 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
CC: "dtn-chairs@ietf.org" <dtn-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050
Thread-Index: AQHVhNRJiSr/MQ4UNUW+KV/XitbZK6dgt1Ng
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 18:19:43 +0000
Message-ID: <5e4a6a1de45d42dc8f06f9678bd7c035@boeing.com>
References: <EC1EF7CB-3637-4DF4-A2CA-47902B4E3519@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <EC1EF7CB-3637-4DF4-A2CA-47902B4E3519@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: C9A62FBF829EC6D11F4BFF9EC50753EDE848DD0E5EF5CEF20F7735E3B3447CC62000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5e4a6a1de45d42dc8f06f9678bd7c035boeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/OJqYFxkV9jov5LZFMT506KLqEnM>
Subject: Re: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 18:20:00 -0000

I appreciate the well thought-out rationale and support this proposal.

Fred

From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:19 AM
To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Cc: dtn-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050


Hello,
based on the various inputs and good discussion on the mailing list regarding obsoleting RFC5050, the chairs have come to this conclusion. Please state your support or not so we can move forward.

Regards, Marc&Rick, co-chairs.

  *   RFC5050 is an experimental RFC, done in IRTF, while draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis will be a Standard track RFC, done in IETF. Different streams, different processes.
  *   we believe there is a strong consensus to not continue working on RFC5050 and not try to be backward compatible. RFC5050 implementations and deployments can continue as they see fit.
  *   IANA registries have their own life, whatever the stream or type of RFC they were created from. They can always be updated by a new RFC.
  *   Given that, we suggest the following steps:

     *   1) draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis would not obsolete RFC5050. Instead we would notify IRTF that draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis is an update of RFC5050. IRTF will decide what they want to do, if anything, with RFC5050.
     *   2) in the new version of the charter that we are currently working on, we will state clearly that there is no intent to work on or make compatible work with RFC5050 and related RFCs
     *   3) DTN working group document authors will review the IANA registries as they are today and request whatever modifications needed, which may include changing the policies, the content, the rules, …

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email