Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Carsten Bormann <> Thu, 26 September 2019 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D37120813 for <>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J7ySg-o74kab for <>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E3F612080F for <>; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 00:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46f6JC3Pn7zyr3; Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:39:23 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:39:23 +0200
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 591176361.319571-9328f9601f57342db31d82cee4b173e4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 07:39:27 -0000

On Sep 25, 2019, at 21:52, Templin (US), Fred L <> 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There will always be protocols in real world use that have been replaced by newer ones.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