Re: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050

Mehmet Adalier <> Fri, 18 October 2019 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76E312000F for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GQeX3ler_YCE for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B33C12011F for <>; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:53:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s2048; t=1571421190; bh=GSCiGI3SFNCe545si3FKLa5QbN9vrkFENz4Vbo5McoY=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=nxLEAUFcPTClf2t0A1e9hDeWIFfbmeQEsZLaAFXzSRRpZxYkYWRF+Yk1bFA0zpN91D+e680+UpALny3LcAnM5IuOrZbLh0+MWaVDWgWCsM4DvR3R+KpG4htC/QZJ1Yq7qDCuNljxqDXq/M4wG38GSIVb9N9uvqXBfiIklVMbAfHYe458V1iuYbSYG5HBgVZ2SK2nNo9Rey7/+8R27FtTLmgv97YAO5cm4zluoN7EpMop2H1TFnSdw5Elf6ZzhoLbaCD6TsQeDis33nLS+Gtv5omLkSieOuy7nYfQphfk1lk9SCkrYtZ3eycY9XFO/CjYHnH3FSO+vK34CvV9krzztQ==
X-YMail-OSG: cBbze8cVM1l5A92Bjh6VI1DGIE0Q1zwtkjSUgnc2zZGcy.cqvPo_gQ2THkI6J5y Gxrq8nbF.Yk15U33RtVq2R5sxYXA06w8fW9xWRBR9IStgI9rooS8rx566gO0nKIQ0zhEEFqET9iC 6bIc8aLrYHftVDW8DBzAOoT4vx1XjVSfqhL8nxYGQYAgRk8dTcgv7DMkBtJ46E1Ao8PxgamSpgKk yKteebdbWYrldtBiA2NL4OjOdStkuSpItuoqNk4lb18lx3nL0dyHNErfh9miuYFNTs0IDtwmwkgL B5qqh87EsRex.KYtmQPbGx84kK7qA7qM_1WVPBQbiJnMINa7J74eZ5__TVrblceRuYvnegas2ZOA CFL_TQNXBA4Cyj1Rhv49m6_OWvaJ4XlpJJXTHY6F1Z22awQHp1OXgNWmwfnz7y_1MBeKfhY2oe0B RvgWOJQ2Y1ZKwRiK6Q6bGw6rUzVDe8QcfRlkGmwFE5n0itPrL7fofB_qzf1dQ6dGtuno_E.VkX.r 0mh0hMW5IrACYV95XdpmeOTccUhwiFVRtZOUmt4mtmO.Os4dDx8mxkTZpi_QF1qBzu7TOOnIfvAx NBWDy4bGcL5dgM0VRnXhCZw23xuCucjuNoV2xipOLJB3U4jlFSaxr6HlV9Hjeve7J69bzEYNjp6v vunVLivd6dHP70X2ya3118GP1Oudgo_sFtz389aoFmZUhxfilZ8oPj0qJuSrL4OZCVyO4.wJMLcN 6AkMB6kK4p4UQnpKPvJ5AZreSC7N5WCL2LRRUBit3VTG6Db4MpHyowAdGoRCtdEQswFb3jMYSZjw lE4u6LMnG8FwNCdIm1WSRqKGtJOV4eYwHzHLqT8nspCueZ7WpLO2uIXOsY.WF5BK78GgLvFXtWme 7tVC_eAEj4nbO0Hg_keqf1jT3qsVhgTUCDePjQ6UTaESV2ch5dDdHoFUcn2LkmWVKHlOvakKQquZ Kl4NKpmBPk8hkG8NOK57N9.hl6Wv20.KQvhgZP_zchvUgyNDNxikdQR07xNLjupTC69C3fxwu8Ny U3psFziXVfOCRKEMsgrOwwu5yeMiYYef34ajYZKw.It8TVA.BJZjwIOuESDV7lP9zhHl_6PUSzhW xO9w4CX1K.j3Vc1oHM9BAVZ4.riXUqrI0ZlKs9z.aG2O33yd2f3WkQRAFqNO5CRLEBA_fExBlCm8 Fn0MT6hdxQ9EMo62IuhK3.flebLtDp8SezdMPufaF.jLiwW1EFh.9hKkn4BtmWVZQmoKJeFr7y1B TV0Lj56QAE_LWhMNLG77gSeGX5hL60VUgFLon9oGbRyo1KAUlwgrsQ5vh5KmAYX6XttdnF0gjoiD 0nmAA1tMPCHHRDN7zVq8J_Vre4AHfywHN9VfYsLmImbe0dSm2HqxPQ7zm
Received: from by with HTTP; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:53:10 +0000
Received: by (Oath Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID f2feceddc64d198f0e56073348590e3c; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:53:05 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:53:02 -0700
From: Mehmet Adalier <>
To: Marc Blanchet <>, DTN WG <>
CC: <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3654240784_1869025302"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050
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: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:53:13 -0000

I support this proposal.


Mehmet Adalier

Antara Teknik LLC


From: dtn <> on behalf of Marc Blanchet <>
Date: Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 3:18 AM
To: DTN WG <>
Cc: <>
Subject: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050


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, …
_______________________________________________ dtn mailing list