Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-14.txt

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Regarding the URI Review. Yes, that URI review needs to occur. However,
we can initiate that as soon as we think we have an update document
where we are happy with these changes. In worst case it will result in
a slightly extended IETF last call. 

Cheers

Magnus

On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 16:26 +0000, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:
> Magnus, thanks for this.  I haven't yet had time to read through all
> of your 
> comments, but I wanted to get an early start on this first one.  I
> certainly 
> agree that the Status of both the dtn and ipn URI schemes should be
> permanent, 
> but it has been my impression that requesting provisional registries
> and then 
> later asking for them to be made permanent would enable us to move
> forward 
> more quickly.  (The URI registration page notes that "Requests for
> permanent 
> registration must be preceded by mailing list review, per Section 7.2
> of 
> [RFC7595]".)  If that's not an issue, excellent, I'll revise the I-D.
> 
> I think the definition of the dtn scheme is broad enough to be
> compatible with 
> all contemplated use in both BPv6 and BPv7, so I don't think 
> BP-version-specific notes need to be included in the registry.
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 5:00 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-14.txt
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have reviewed how this document addresses my AD comments.
> 
> 
> > 1. Section 4.1.5.1 and 10 :
> > 
> > As this document uses the "dtn" URI scheme and the "dtn" scheme was
> > only provisional registered by RFC 5050 I think this document
> > should
> > formally register the DTN URI scheme and thus a new subsection in
> > Section 10 is needed.
> 
> I note the new section 10.7 registering dtn. However, shouldn't the
> Status be permanent rather than provisional?
> 
> Secondly, is there any need to discuss how DTN scheme deals with BP
> versions?
> 
> > 
> > Also, maybe similar effort to move "ipn" to permeant is needed?
> 
> And to my understanding IPN will stay with RFC 6260 and that is fine
> by
> me.
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  [phone]
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------