IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: bpbis

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Sun, 04 August 2019 00:01 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 6E92A12016F for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 u6mVDY1xSzYk for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
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 0C557120162 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
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 x73NuCKx068107; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:01:52 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jpl.nasa.gov; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=InSight1906; bh=B303jU+78nF6A2b9kaq+/6sTzlLb7buIh/Uzr2o6OQ4=; b=S5YV5YMVCcyD4sLUPsZ0FQ0DAU+1MAxAuSaOXwbeQ+pvUTYLdlaXymj7jqdHf/uh5fSF fFw1l1ToDHdk0B9thL6plDysSjMLVMRJXS2DcATti2ind/uV1O5POzkAuh1OzxfuHTAs dayUfTznLlpT5RxFhQpkN2hyY7wkqRp2Mkeui31vtsUGG+tL2GkPM7zgEjwNSXheoLFm hx+m9NXiolNYbhMbI8nCHoSXRtNuJVThkypuISRea91wpYaIE6NANLxFTD8iAcm5BCl+ 6kMg4ze5QKFS6fBOhG0BU0vDhMzzF6JSBEQdH3ipQSkx0OIe0x19rd9UeBP3J5/nOrPe 1A==
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (altphysenclup03.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.120]) by ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP id 2u57c8tv88-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 03 Aug 2019 17:01:52 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (ap-embx16-sp10.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.83]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id x7401pRG021807 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:01:52 -0700
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; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:01:51 -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; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:01:51 -0700
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
CC: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dtn] bpbis
Thread-Index: AdVKOd3AcBee6/NKRdKBVPxyjPDfZAAP3eMA//+8+BQ=
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2019 00:01:51 +0000
Message-ID: <3856B193E9F8C5E4.ea6c1388-362f-4800-9dbd-8b7220a6c81a@mail.outlook.com>
References: <a0e8bf30b24f4620bd05c790b6fa3271@jpl.nasa.gov>, <468EF36D-9B5C-497F-8363-1543BE0B73D3@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <468EF36D-9B5C-497F-8363-1543BE0B73D3@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_3856B193E9F8C5E4ea6c1388362f48009dbd8b7220a6c81amailout_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: ap-embx16-sp10.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.83]
X-Source-Sender: scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-03_13:, , 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=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908030284
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/ebcBTT_jlGN1yM32EsGGEle5_E4>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: bpbis
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: Sun, 04 Aug 2019 00:01:57 -0000

Sure, will do that tomorrow morning.

sent from my phone




On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 2:01 PM -0700, "Marc Blanchet" <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca<mailto:marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>> wrote:


Thanks Scott. I suggest you submit the draft as it is. Submitting has
the property to enable people to use diff or all other tools available,
instead of your marked up PDF (which is great, but people may want to
use something else).

Regards, Marc.

On 3 Aug 2019, at 16:45, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:

> Hi.  Attached is a proposed revision of the bpbis specification that I
> think addresses all the changes we agreed on in Montreal and in email
> to date.  Some notes:
>
> 1.  I have arbitrarily inserted language reflecting the direction in
> which I think WG sentiment is taking us on the questions of maximum
> hop limit, BPSEC mandate, and the CRC option.  I will be glad to
> change this language as we reach consensus on those questions.
>
> 2.  In the course of transcribing the registry rules from RFC6255 into
> section 10 I realized that in some cases the registry values we have
> defined in bpbis are different enough from existing registries to
> motivate the creation of new registries after all.  The proposed new
> registries are defined and RFC 6255 is obsoleted.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn  On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 9:52 AM
> To: DTN WG
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] bpbis: maximum hop limit
>
> Hello,
>   from our AD review of BPBis, there was a question on should there be
> a maximum hop limit, and if yes, what value should it be. There was
> some discussion today during the meeting, and it went towards
> specifying a maximum hop limit in BPbis, but there was almost no
> discussion on the possible value. So please provide your input here by
> replying to the list.
>
> =======
> Should there be a maximum hop limit in BPbis?  (expected answer: yes
> or
> no)
>
> If yes, what value should it be?  (expected answer: an unsigned
> integer
> value)
>
> Rationale for your answers?
>
> =========
>
> Thanks, Marc, co-chair.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email