Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-22: (with DISCUSS)

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <> Thu, 06 February 2020 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A07A01200CD; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:56:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 NRqPfGqgT8R9; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D74FA12009E; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id 016GoEfB117494; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:55:53 -0800
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=uCeURLgBbAMTnq8DlbQbXvunrZjiSXtU4rGE9PL4O3E=; b=xGNaxO4vgA18kPO4Q9tLbkERxr4TSWvvmjNp7Q0GwkXwDeinrcaj5+AYlq/74QSi9Wb8 /3IrheP5g930QeFDlMCG7UI8e3Hm7Kpp4vWkMnVZCZe/Bzxj6dxRM/Z3zuEpqy0vexYi J06srB2ucjyWOin8n/b5LVhwNbedy5V7YPYavtKKoLTBAsrAy/RPSLXgkMQb2oLWSEGY sKb1PxglXLE0JMkj45kjVNyuEIpl7ItH6v4CsrGQxXGwdYABJn3rRRuyuLO/yt+if4Nx svXjAw/ZCJKhTJM0guYIYrzMP2xiQCI5Ojvh2ntQl/uqeezkZvdwbs9e4edSmXiQG/vb dA==
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2y0mgj8gp6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:55:53 -0800
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL ( []) by (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id 016GtqpT025858 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:55:52 -0800
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:55:52 -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, 6 Feb 2020 08:55:52 -0800
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <>
To: Alexey Melnikov <>, The IESG <>
CC: "" <>, "Fred Templin" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-22: (with DISCUSS)
Thread-Index: AQHV3OZ9OZB+/0hgOUyTtE9wovPKa6gOWwAg
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 16:55:52 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: []
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2020-02-06_01:, , 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=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-2002060129
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-22: (with DISCUSS)
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, 06 Feb 2020 16:56:01 -0000

Absolutely, we anticipate that over time a wide variety of strategies for topology discovery and route selection will be developed to support BP forwarding in a variety of operational scenarios.  Most implementations to date have simply used static routing tables, just to enable interoperability testing.  One published standard for BP routing does exist, but it's not yet an IETF standard: the Schedule-Aware Bundle Routing "Blue Book" published by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems ( is currently in operational use on-board the International Space Station.  SABR was developed in the context of version 6 of the Bundle Protocol, not the current draft, but it is equally applicable to BPv7 since the representation of endpoint IDs has not changed.

BP typically relies on the retry strategies of the transport ("convergence layer") protocols it runs over, in hop-by-hop fashion, as end-to-end retransmission is suboptimal in a delay-tolerant network.  One element of retry strategy that is identified in the BP draft, though, is this: as noted in Step 5 of section 5.4, failure in transmission at the convergence layer may cause the bundle protocol agent to initiate another attempt to forward the bundle, possibly using a different route and/or different transport protocol.

In addition, a "custody transfer" mechanism for retry at the bundle layer itself is defined in the Bundle-in-Bundle Encapsulation protocol specification, a separate Internet Draft that we hope to advance to IESG review soon.  (The most recent edition of that draft expired a couple of days ago, and I haven't yet had time to re-post it.)

As noted in section 8, three implementations of BPv7 have been announced to date, and two of those implementations -- PyDTN and uPCN -- have been shown to be interoperable.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <> 
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:11 AM
To: The IESG <>
Cc:; Fred Templin <>om>;;;
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-22: (with DISCUSS)

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-22: Discuss


Preliminary DISCUSS, I am likely to Defer the document, as I have more detailed comments.

Routing decisions, discovery of endpoints to contact for forwarding and retry strategies are listed as out-of-scope for this document. This is not sufficient for writing an interoperable implementation, unless there is a separate document that provides such details.