Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

+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
>