Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 26 September 2019 13:57 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 679601200A3 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 9AaD_3-3pKaU; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 086111200F5; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x8QDvoHj006843; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:57:50 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-12.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.114]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x8QDve4S005494 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:57:40 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:57:39 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 06:57:39 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: "irtf-chair@irtf.org" <irtf-chair@irtf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
Thread-Index: AQHVcsnkoVBWvwlBjka178bErT77dKc7J5mAgAAqIQCAAXr48IABPhqA///yCgA=
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:57:39 +0000
Message-ID: <da135487a9f74feb85de07dd38db6078@boeing.com>
References: <ecc5ee275929440b8b70d570451219a77dc5a176.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <1376435003.14731004.1569226573419@mail.yahoo.com> <7DC9F8DB-00E1-47C6-8F05-93771AEE4B0C@tzi.org> <75A02579-9C5A-4692-86FA-B5B73AF84A2A@csperkins.org> <780D35E5-B4CA-4C77-A217-19034BB60EE8@gmail.com> <66CC5320-E483-4FC9-A610-1D79A899A704@tzi.org> <10753318-5C0A-4401-A028-EAB657CF9002@csperkins.org> <a2f26181a52848b59032e036fee0ea11@boeing.com> <396DBA23-B220-412B-8E89-B0E73993F382@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <396DBA23-B220-412B-8E89-B0E73993F382@tzi.org>
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: A0DD8A704CB1228701062BBFFB6FF1F3685281A67FA053DE4E1F160C89171D522000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/QpX3RyRWkvzGiV4hxV1_IVapqkQ>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
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, 26 Sep 2019 13:57:53 -0000

Actually, I like the IPv4 / IPv6 analogy but if you don't consider also that IPv4 did not
"obsolete" OSI yet there are still small pockets of OSI deployment worldwide. (For
that matter, I don't think anyone ever claimed to "obsolete" DECnet.) In this sense,
by going out of our way to say "obsoletes" BPv7 would going against the precedence
set by a number of significant earlier examples.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:39 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: irtf-chair@irtf.org; dtn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
> 
> On Sep 25, 2019, at 21:52, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> 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