Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt [AD-INT]

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Fri, 29 November 2019 23:35 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 A3BD3120133 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:35:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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] autolearn=unavailable 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 UHoyhn5PaVmM for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov (ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.113]) (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 166EB12011D for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:34:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) by ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xATNUH88010560; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:34:52 -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=6KowQB0K7CUGGOxTJKhr82pA2blMmC7552ZTJYRrR2U=; b=LIYvRtpL807q1j9gg8kTR56J+YfySpLCTC13CpytuYqYhNx5sRcAB2mQeVlh2eh1GeTr H04W0raLpO+fU01OKuSgCAwfkjKRvR5laOioIl+zkH00bEgg7tgAlMMczSTmeqnve5P6 JHPPbP8UHaKojJ39C2kjrhhQFewVSmJkEYuwj5toFCVyoRMxuZliDYM/0YTFIq251Jcj p7aE2jOPy0fW+NMFwiT/wJCwyLo/gg+A+J+wr1WWs23a+cp/SIqTnOgms2CcCzrLnMiw yvTeoPdeRKtCsPn7jxYfft2/nqYwNeifTV9KPJRMkq7fOVxXWW00S9pWPp4VfVPynQ5V hQ==
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (altphysenclup02.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.53]) by ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP id 2wjg0ucx50-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:34:51 -0800
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (ap-embx16-sp10.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.83]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id xATNYorK001999 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:34:50 -0800
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:34:50 -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; Fri, 29 Nov 2019 15:34:50 -0800
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>, "rick.taylor@airbus.com" <rick.taylor@airbus.com>, "BSipos@rkf-eng.com" <BSipos@rkf-eng.com>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt [AD-INT]
Thread-Index: AdWlElTfO3piyVZYTuaBls1uGitLSQBgfmkAAB2jlbA=
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:34:50 +0000
Message-ID: <08b483f6dc864621a0fff0ee29279b70@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <044cca11b0804969bb91c3b97c2fef52@CD1-4BDAG04-P04.cdmail.common.airbusds.corp> <075e10b5cb74187616cccfdb4038d6f4db6acf34.camel@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <075e10b5cb74187616cccfdb4038d6f4db6acf34.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-sp10.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.83]
X-Source-Sender: scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-29_08:, , 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=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-1911290204
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/PyJd4yBmBl4H6kqQ7O2yxG3zgOU>
Subject: Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt [AD-INT]
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, 29 Nov 2019 23:35:01 -0000

Okay, wait.  If the consensus that was reached at the meeting is not the final consensus, despite direct contemporaneous IESG input, and we therefore have to go back to the WG mailing list again for a final decision, then I strongly suspect we will once again end up in a state of non-consensus and immobility.  I totally agree with Rick that we must stop going around this buoy, but it may be out of our hands:  I believe there is still significant opposition within the WG to the prospect of the BPbis specification obsoleting RFC 5050.

If I am wrong about this, excellent; let's press ahead!

But if I am right, then I would urge us to drop back to the formulation that had been arduously worked out by the chairs as of 17 October:

"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, …"


My interpretation of which is:

1.	The IETF DTN WG does not have authority to obsolete a document produced by another organization (IRTF), so it will not do so.
2.	The IRTF is informed that BPbis is being standardized.  If IRTF, pursuant to its own deliberations, thereupon chooses to obsolete RFC5050, fine.

(I think the same policy would apply to TCPCLv3.)

I think this can be clearly communicated in the BPv7 specification, and I suspect it may be the only way to achieve the objectives of the WG and move forward.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 1:07 AM
To: dtn@ietf.org; magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org; rick.taylor@airbus.com; BSipos@rkf-eng.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt [AD-INT]

Rick,

It was discussed and the meetings consensus was to obsolete it. Until you have confirmed it on the WG mailing list, it is not yet a WG consensus, so please run that consensus call. 

Cheers

Magnus


On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 11:03 +0000, Taylor, Rick wrote:
> [ AIRBUS DEFENCE AND SPACE INTERNAL ]
> Magnus,
> 
> The consensus of the WG is to obsolete BPv6 and by extension TCPCLv3.
> 
> Let's try not to keep going around this buoy ;)
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
> 
> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO EXPORT CONTROL.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 9:40 AM
> To: dtn@ietf.org; BSipos@rkf-eng.com
> Subject: Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt
> 
> On Tue, 2019-11-26 at 19:26 +0000, Brian Sipos wrote:
> > Magnus,
> > I've asked for a SECDIR review of last changes to the draft.
> > 
> > The port assignee and contact being the IESG makes sense to me and I 
> > will update the draft to reflect this.
> > 
> > The use of two reference RFCs doesn't make sense to me, though, and 
> > I don't see any examples of this in the current IANA registry. The
> > TCPCLv4 supersedes
> > v3 and is entity-level interoperable with v3. The RFC-TBA also 
> > references
> > RFC7242 internally, so if the IANA port registration of just RFC-TBA 
> > will allow someone to trace back to RFC7242 if they need to. Seeing 
> > one port with two separate protocol versions in the reference seems 
> > confusing.
> 
> So my goal here was that there would be clear that there might be 
> multiple different versions using this particular port.
> 
> What was confusing me here and lead me down the reasoning that both 
> should be listed was the expectation that BPv6 and its usage of 
> TCPclv3 would not be directly obsoleted, and definitely not disapear 
> from usage. Re-reading the IANA section and looking at this document I 
> think it is clear that if you actually go look in this docuemnt, you 
> can figure out that TCPclv3 may also be used on this port. Thus, a 
> single reference is fine with me after this additional consideration.
> 
> And if we are back to having BPv7 obsolete BPv6, then I think having 
> this direct obosletion is fine. If we are not having the first, this 
> document's obsoletion of TCPclv3 needs another thought. I note that we 
> have not been consistent in our actions due to the obsoletion discussion.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Magnus
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> >  From: Magnus Westerlund
> > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 04:27
> > To: dtn@ietf.org; Brian Sipos
> > Subject: Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt
> > 
> > Hi Brian,
> > 
> > Can you please try to get feedback on the update from the Secdir 
> > reviewer, or if you already have, it provide a pointer to that.
> > 
> > Anyway, looking at the update I did find an issue we need to fix. 
> > 
> > In Section 9.1 the Update to the dtn-bundle TCPCL port registration. 
> > 
> > As this is an IETF protocol now, the assigne should be:
> > 
> > IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> > 
> > IESG have had some discussion about the contact person and if that 
> > also should be the IESG, the WG or an individual. The argument for 
> > making it to IESG is that it likely to be more long term stable that 
> > the other options. But, this is more open to discussion, so consider 
> > what makes most sense long term and use that.
> > 
> > When it comes to references I think there is a point to list both 
> > the RFC-TBA as well as RFC7242 that defines the earlier version. 
> > But, please list RFC7242 after this docuemnt.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Magnus
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2019-11-22 at 22:18 +0000, Brian Sipos wrote:
> > > All,
> > > This latest draft of TCPCLv4 addresses comments from SECDIR review 
> > > and IANA review. It does not change any of the messaging 
> > > structure, only clarifies behaviors related to TLS use and 
> > > sequencing, and fixes some contradictory text.
> > > From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of 
> > > internet-drafts@ietf.org < internet-drafts@ietf.org>
> > > Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 17:04
> > > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org <i-d-announce@ietf.org>
> > > Cc: dtn@ietf.org <dtn@ietf.org>
> > > Subject: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt
> > >  
> > > 
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
> > > directories.
> > > This draft is a work item of the Delay/Disruption Tolerant 
> > > Networking WG of the IETF.
> > > 
> > >         Title           : Delay-Tolerant Networking TCP Convergence Layer
> > > Protocol Version 4
> > >         Authors         : Brian Sipos
> > >                           Michael Demmer
> > >                           Joerg Ott
> > >                           Simon Perreault
> > >         Filename        : draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt
> > >         Pages           : 63
> > >         Date            : 2019-11-22
> > > 
> > > Abstract:
> > >    This document describes a revised protocol for the TCP-based
> > >    convergence layer (TCPCL) for Delay-Tolerant Networking (DTN).  The
> > >    protocol revision is based on implementation issues in the original
> > >    TCPCL Version 3 of RFC7242 and updates to the Bundle Protocol
> > >    contents, encodings, and convergence layer requirements in Bundle
> > >    Protocol Version 7.  Specifically, the TCPCLv4 uses CBOR-encoded BPv7
> > >    bundles as its service data unit being transported and provides a
> > >    reliable transport of such bundles.  Several new IANA registries are
> > >    defined for TCPCLv4 which define some behaviors inherited from
> > >    TCPCLv3 but with updated encodings and/or semantics.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4/
> > > 
> > > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16
> > > 
> > > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> > > submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at 
> > > tools.ietf.org.
> > > 
> > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dtn mailing list
> > > dtn@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > dtn mailing list
> > > dtn@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> 
> --
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or 
> privileged information.  If you have received them in error you must 
> not use, copy or disclose their content to any person.  Please notify 
> the sender immediately and then delete this email from your system.  
> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses, but it is the responsibility 
> of the recipient to conduct their own security measures. Airbus 
> Operations Limited is not liable for any loss or damage arising from the receipt or use of this e-mail.
> 
> Airbus Operations Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, 
> registration number, 3468788.  Registered office:  Pegasus House, 
> Aerospace Avenue, Filton, Bristol, BS34 7PA, UK.
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
--
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------