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

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 03 December 2019 20:14 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 5048E12000F for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:14:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 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] autolearn=unavailable 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 C8bpAACJOfd3 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:14:03 -0800 (PST)
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 5E55E120044 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:14:03 -0800 (PST)
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 xB3KDx0W017729 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:14:02 -0500
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 xB3KDmqR016092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:13:48 -0500
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 15.1.1779.2; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:13:46 -0800
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; Tue, 3 Dec 2019 12:13:46 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>, 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: AdWlElTfO3piyVZYTuaBls1uGitLSQBgfmkAAB2jlbAAwtCp8A==
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 20:13:46 +0000
Message-ID: <fb4a6c4d7e4e4afda1c4098a66b3dfb9@boeing.com>
References: <044cca11b0804969bb91c3b97c2fef52@CD1-4BDAG04-P04.cdmail.common.airbusds.corp> <075e10b5cb74187616cccfdb4038d6f4db6acf34.camel@ericsson.com> <08b483f6dc864621a0fff0ee29279b70@jpl.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <08b483f6dc864621a0fff0ee29279b70@jpl.nasa.gov>
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: 86946D6F5617D5FE0B406064406D476428EC9F754B0235EF2C89CCE0202F7F272000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-imss-reprocess-rules: 1254.17
X-imss-reprocess-type: readdress
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/U8N7NXrLfFk3zRvS7J1Eu7HxQN4>
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 20:14:05 -0000

+1 to Scott's analysis.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 3:35 PM
> To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; dtn@ietf.org; rick.taylor@airbus.com; BSipos@rkf-
> eng.com
> Subject: Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-16.txt [AD-INT]
> 
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn