Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com> Fri, 20 September 2019 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ratliffstan@gmail.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 82CA4120045 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 d6hyNDiNnYLt for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x434.google.com (mail-pf1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 604F8120832 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x434.google.com with SMTP id h195so5003548pfe.5 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xuTtgrPjEqx6x93S9KKPZH57pbF1Avd3+5inmCPtGGs=; b=U8xCOMlL+0Poq4pcZ1T12IuG3zfWYyncsQaRLPndKcNh62kKc4hgOUvws1AzPPZar8 1Fjf9tNbM3QmX55yEnN46lwrqGdZ18Zj3sXWNXs/N6t+Q+JsgZoQ7xCW45e2RT6r4MWM ZZVWcYYf80v8axHDrZQbx3Vt7iNlRM4A4fGxYTUL8Sq0Y/WW3o6DVarDE6Qn7h9YU0b/ R5s7GgvGqmcRTZ225BBCIqvZ9XgqnZhYZ+Qo5kW1Rz6IQysMcepoSbc6BgC8Q1AAsoFJ WZagXHinJyF6LmeTOON9ht/PQelUjHPVOuHw59sjMyjQuBELvC+P5mbJ4habqm78PwWX xs2g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xuTtgrPjEqx6x93S9KKPZH57pbF1Avd3+5inmCPtGGs=; b=s9mLu8RZqye5oIuhwiBNfieaMeSD/Xy+vrpP92izd33V1mSe0UbjD4ZKmulnKJyU18 VRE1FdqMqexebIyBJFtpbe5RN+HgsAS6HeGze7ijGzupj0AjvVR3otSLzIQSGBX5RJa4 VaOFvSjJHE71YJp/3MCT3lwSS3bIAXUSI3Gt5mL/LO0LcN18vX9ixiVSMQecpWRJ+T3D dP83d2uOGLC9R6atyS3R3t2CN8IJynxDIgwx8be/mq3eyjH/Nr4BfxUoreCnuRXoiQcC DJFeFdCIMTKyhkPVcZ1epKzGqdsJEc3ihJc+8aaSF61mkZw++6ycQgtuHg/z958gJBVq 0P8g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXGjKhTgKZIbjZe/KNccmM8vxn663Uzf+gGgptdSZB/1LIB/O3/ rfgG0NPm/4vQVTMHEoO9FHy3FZCM0js15neh8z72wHVt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyiZQ8wPBc81kLgo5hqWJW06JvK9rBCryXb3aHb1W7s5sB3IM1ky9IVM35BMicxz2xnEX+KmYI5fP9paOhuaF0=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:ea07:: with SMTP id c7mr17230868pgi.106.1569002170706; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 10:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ecc5ee275929440b8b70d570451219a77dc5a176.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <5c3001f4b73a42ec9ccb0f3d5880dacc@jpl.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <5c3001f4b73a42ec9ccb0f3d5880dacc@jpl.nasa.gov>
From: Stan Ratliff <ratliffstan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:55:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CALtoyomB2ZutRmFKYOqYN47j766Hh5HY2uFNmtV5u1+2LQUS6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000971ba0592ffc9b8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/fC227Zo3jk-b3Nvgup_GYqaRINE>
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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:56:15 -0000

+1 on marking RFC5050 as obsolete.

Regards,
Stan

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 1:50 PM Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)
<scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>; wrote:

> If I understand correctly, it sounds like choosing not to mark RFC5050 as
> obsolete would commit the DTN WG to considering alignment with BPv6 (as
> well as BPv7) in all future deliberations on DTN standards.  I think that
> would be a troublesome constraint on the working group.
>
> We've done a lot of good work with BPv6, and existing BPv6 deployments
> certainly must continue to be supported.  However, I don't think that
> support necessarily has to extend to the development and standardization of
> new BPv6 features.
>
> The BPv7 specification, together with bundle-in-bundle encapsulation, is
> an improved protocol design that encompasses a superset of BPv6
> capabilities.  Migrating existing BPv6 deployments to BPv7 will not be
> effortless, but I think the investment will be amply repaid over the next
> few years.
>
> So on this reasoning I support the IETF 105 consensus to obsolete RFC5050.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org>; On Behalf Of Rick Taylor
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 9:02 AM
> To: dtn@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
>
> Hi All,
>
> During the DTN interim meeting on Sept 18th, there was a discussion on
> making RFC5050 obsolete or not. This discussion also happened at IETF
> 105 and the consensus of the room was to obsolete RFC5050.
> This consensus was not formally called and verified on the mailing list
> afterwards (although minutes were posted), and so this is the purpose of
> this email.
>
> It is well understood by the working group that there is existing
> investment in RFC5050 implementations and installations, and that these
> will not immediately move to BPv7 if RFC5050 is marked as obsolete.
> However, by doing so a strong signal is sent to industry that the working
> group considers BPv7 as the replacement for RFC5050, and that future effort
> by the working group will be directed solely at BPv7.
> This would not automatically preclude any work around supporting moving
> from RFC5050 to BPv7 or interoperability, but such work would not be
> considered a priority.
>
> If the working group does not choose to mark RFC5050 as obsolete, we are
> committing to maintain it as a suitable target for convergence layers,
> addressing schemes, routing and management protocols, etc. that may be
> standardised in the future by the working group.
>
> Hence, here is the request: Should draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis obsolete RFC5050?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rick & Marc
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>