Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <> Wed, 25 September 2019 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2551200CC for <>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
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=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xVImVp6G9YMg; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B39E120072; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id x8PLKoT7194261; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:27:23 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=InSight1906; bh=fnuf7+ygnr7r2mFulEib7mkXZNzvXWGyZ0anl5kkhEQ=; b=CJWy0wVOqhhpz0fo/A0UOf8Fih3SWOkrqXNL+cU0W2HokoE3tMncJyRviPVoq+WNPR1L YCbaCvPCV/ZezfVDvTThprcAAxjNO3tOFweaJPjoXgLXmdCbPczIacsNUAZamLTjSqoj y8pAu+Ub/SaldpiYypr+klNFI8AkK5oJ5VVtkXGr8QmB9VmLM7XJWh/ey74sb42XvQZ6 emIi0cJzQf+4o47y+BfavgQhthEQPKSPGBmoF86XQ8xn56eskXdmKZPG1DgjVf33+Wys hVLwCqI+S2PCS42/X/xbuy7CzOS5VU47t+tDgfrAWJhA6vEudMQtC0OZO2Am4kHI+BbY xQ==
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2v8bpf92p8-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:27:23 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp60.RES.AD.JPL ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id x8PLRMGx007722 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:27:22 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp60.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:898d::8095:898d) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:27:21 -0700
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; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:27:22 -0700
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
Thread-Index: AQHVc9rdwd8Jsa7T2UGIC3vHeWwT+6c855mw
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:27:22 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: []
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-09-25_10:, , 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=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=869 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1909250172
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: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:27:28 -0000

Absolutely.  I think the issue really is just whether or not the IETF DTN WG will be responsible for maintenance and extension of BPv6 in the future.  And maybe that's simply not an issue.


-----Original Message-----
From: dtn <> On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 12:52 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Coming into this late, no one has mentioned the analogy of IPv4 and IPv6. IPv6 did not obsolete IPv4 when it was published over 20 years ago. Had IPv6 come out and said "obsoletes IPv4" at the time of its publication would we now have an all-IPv6 Internet today? Probably not - operational experience with IPv4 would have continued along its then-current trajectory extending up to the present day.

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.

dtn mailing list