Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Thu, 23 January 2020 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
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 CBA6A12097D for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:25:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jpl.nasa.gov
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 yt6H1RAJmZ8R for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov (ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.112]) (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 7A8B2120220 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) by ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 00NIKa4k051765; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:25:05 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jpl.nasa.gov; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=InSight1906; bh=GhNlSa+u22qhgNhG9dWnUjExvCwUHMWRkPxL+YVu2/c=; b=ivXLV7HkO217aY88a9HEK82beHo7h/LFJMNeRsRtmYX3DqxiIbsYdM7F7HcmJU+m9tS3 eHoG90K+ewJwcGnQazwtyIBVPOsy1U5NzVUselK9T1Yk1CN5qOAQbdvuYMqoAeinrIqi tVCmDEqkaCphD/XZhxBqPdEaUNYYgzalWw4qX6/I1oyka2aK5eEhDwBWEQxglzVJC4Xd Aw7YQrsiSn76q87bRIqa/XPMZAFTfTX1BPXU9rHqs1TUwJ/62S9fdd6fcbuOVL1mhWcV OS3IIK/AZoiC2UaY6W9m271lSoFUs8Cebm/kxXS27hVQnkYIts5xBQVcYLdt4C0rjDk3 DQ==
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (altphysenclup02.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.53]) by ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP id 2xpw0abr4v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:25:05 -0800
Received: from ap-embx16-sp60.RES.AD.JPL (ap-embx16-sp60.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.141]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id 00NIP4cU013536 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:25:04 -0800
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; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:25:03 -0800
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; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:25:04 -0800
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
Thread-Index: AdXSDjH7/asJfpuQSwKX57wSGA6pTAADB+zg
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 18:25:04 +0000
Message-ID: <1330d49806c34eee8d8b96632cb787d9@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <DB7PR07MB4572AF8FE67BBF4EDBB65B16950F0@DB7PR07MB4572.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DB7PR07MB4572AF8FE67BBF4EDBB65B16950F0@DB7PR07MB4572.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [207.151.104.72]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1330d49806c34eee8d8b96632cb787d9jplnasagov_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: ap-embx16-sp60.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.141]
X-Source-Sender: scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2020-01-23_11:, , 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=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=724 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-2001230141
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/YMAN41X9rM2hInR7Ly7KNAqxyQs>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
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, 23 Jan 2020 18:25:10 -0000

That sounds fine to me, Magnus.  I need to post a revised draft anyway.

Scott

From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:51 AM
To: dtn@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6

WG,

The current BPv7 documents (BPbis, BPSec and TCPCLv4) where intending to obsolete BPv6 and the corresponding RFCs. However, due to a mistake from my side I would recommend that we split the whole obsoletion out from the publication of the BPv7 specifications.

There are several reasons for this recommendation:
-          First I missed to make an explicit call in the IETF last call about the obsoletion and invoking the process.
-          Secondly, as this would be the first time attempting to use the process of obsoleting an IRTF stream document. It hasn't been discussed in IETF in public, although IRSG has approved the IRTF part, and we discussed it in IESG. However, there has been concerns about the lack of public discussion in the IESG. Therefore, I have been recommended to first announce this process and allow for discussion and reply to any concern over it before applying it to avoid any appeals.
-          Announcing the discussion, responding to any feedback, then redoing the IETF last calls will result in a delay of at least month likely two. This will be a significant delay.

To ensure that we can make progress and don't delay the publication of BPv7 specifications my proposal is the following.

-          BPbis, BPsec and TCPclv4 do not obsolete their BPv6 counter parts. Thus, making it possible to progress these specification with minimal delay if any. If the WG agrees to this plan and the authors BPbis and BPsec can submit a new draft within a week (by 30 Jan) we should have no delay due to this.
-          Then the WG can write a separate document requesting making BPv6 historic. This document can then request the obsoletion of the relevant RFCs. As there was a rough consensus on these obsoletion we can actually ensure that this document correctly describe the situation that development will occur in BPv7 and the fact that usage of BPv6 will continue.

So I would very much appreciate rapid feedback on this.

I am very sorry about the complications and my errors in processing this.

Magnus Westerlund
TSV AD