IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Wed, 25 September 2019 19:52 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 30ECE120839 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.179
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 X_r1_ItN_Gs0; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
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 4D3E412080D; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:52:18 -0700 (PDT)
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 x8PJqFfo029657; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:52:15 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.112]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x8PJqAoH028615 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 Sep 2019 15:52:10 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:52:09 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:52:09 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
CC: "irtf-chair@irtf.org" <irtf-chair@irtf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
Thread-Index: AQHVcsnkoVBWvwlBjka178bErT77dKc7J5mAgAAqIQCAAXr48A==
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:52:08 +0000
Message-ID: <a2f26181a52848b59032e036fee0ea11@boeing.com>
References: <ecc5ee275929440b8b70d570451219a77dc5a176.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <1376435003.14731004.1569226573419@mail.yahoo.com> <7DC9F8DB-00E1-47C6-8F05-93771AEE4B0C@tzi.org> <75A02579-9C5A-4692-86FA-B5B73AF84A2A@csperkins.org> <780D35E5-B4CA-4C77-A217-19034BB60EE8@gmail.com> <66CC5320-E483-4FC9-A610-1D79A899A704@tzi.org> <10753318-5C0A-4401-A028-EAB657CF9002@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <10753318-5C0A-4401-A028-EAB657CF9002@csperkins.org>
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: AACEF78D11D434022CEE2F64FC00DEA99021E51373FB3BD25000C7E7491639902000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/ZpX188uuGeXr_QoWjuBntej1Bvo>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
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: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:52:34 -0000

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.

Fred

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email