Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6

Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it> Fri, 24 January 2020 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo.caini@unibo.it>
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 313751200CD for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 01:34:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=liveunibo.onmicrosoft.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 ZWgUsmyv6pgf for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 01:33:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from EUR02-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr20122.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.2.122]) (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 1C66F1200A1 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 01:33:58 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=KLl5M8hs0zr99qzZaVRBAynJ8ToG5Ed8w7bkDCORQk7MENU3MzCO6Z3JvsqNgdwh7viS1UzNBoH2BIiTH7hlpk/1FCOUeT+aK7gnmqhbC202H3Fn9kDCYpbcpf5XJtO0JivqwbEU/RWCTLfzaauuRkJMmG2jzSz8BMC9tXGiFFTOFZrt5JJeyOrWjksxjjCzwf8IL2jd2hJOV4gagX4zxIj5H0yLuUq+wOT8jwjzHja5aySoR/E7DTxT3t+AkIWErSrADPS8soC6fkaqApe3g7ChkzCJLhqciySF+Ajyxq9wa9pCxSE2ygvDV+FTAePIKf64Rhx5CnW1PntN93o6Rw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=x0GvbbM/uFxjX7hIU8gGs71q2EVQWP1/P/WB9zv4/CQ=; b=LUjxwQBCFYddpuIMGkIfbJxHBJ6d4Q6psjKVe68dt1/U8jrgjH7F+Y6wIkeSThxvmGggmMlkNQuoYuugJX8opjWtlNJp/rT3LADWzH1Yfc+7lguglk8guT2LzXpoCahzrxvnUNhCjGVd+RQOX9GDxPblWA96dbe3GA3yxi4VvsSn09Uxsudyei5c3GhFV0Pbb9EToJUn2ukQ/tFLucHiAwTAJt1vqTCTEWwA+8s1gdNRE6WGlfHXjru1bbpptZLJNCUI9Y46IVt8RGi5JA92H/eGswD8v+j8yAfelNIPMdhA3mHfsvtky2Lh2QEL4JEKGSeqWjRFnVRxHx8O8/wL9g==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=unibo.it; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=unibo.it; dkim=pass header.d=unibo.it; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=liveunibo.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-liveunibo-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=x0GvbbM/uFxjX7hIU8gGs71q2EVQWP1/P/WB9zv4/CQ=; b=StB5Pxtu5hPj/JY0weruih58YGboQTwgn0ciXr3jraoFULh4EbiLf1nO24OdMDngAw1wT8Ppk3JaYeU3ptkwv3chmR6ejkRTEhpH6uME+3xx5GQl5ujmjxNkIRWryFtFVEI+ShOpZ2nV9VMmPxaxXJr091gjA5Zc832gdaW55KI=
Received: from AM6PR01MB4181.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (20.177.39.82) by AM6PR01MB4038.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (20.176.242.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2644.20; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:33:55 +0000
Received: from AM6PR01MB4181.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::f5ba:3e69:11ed:28a8]) by AM6PR01MB4181.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com ([fe80::f5ba:3e69:11ed:28a8%7]) with mapi id 15.20.2644.028; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:33:55 +0000
Received: from DESKTOP-00R5SM1.unibo.it (137.204.143.180) by PR0P264CA0226.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:100:1e::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA) id 15.20.2665.20 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:33:54 +0000
From: Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
Thread-Index: AQHV0plk/asJfpuQSwKX57wSGA6pTA==
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 09:33:55 +0000
Message-ID: <AM6PR01MB418181084D25EC8028C9B164870E0@AM6PR01MB4181.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
References: <DB7PR07MB4572AF8FE67BBF4EDBB65B16950F0@DB7PR07MB4572.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <1330d49806c34eee8d8b96632cb787d9@jpl.nasa.gov> <04d4a18d4df24f41ab77e1f72c99b41b@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <04d4a18d4df24f41ab77e1f72c99b41b@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-clientproxiedby: PR0P264CA0226.FRAP264.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2603:10a6:100:1e::22) To AM6PR01MB4181.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:10a6:20b:1d::18)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=carlo.caini@unibo.it;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
x-originating-ip: [137.204.143.180]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ce7caffe-7c53-483c-453d-08d7a0b087eb
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: AM6PR01MB4038:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM6PR01MB4038782115D5D3BF2CDBED43870E0@AM6PR01MB4038.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 02929ECF07
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(4636009)(376002)(346002)(136003)(396003)(39860400002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(71200400001)(478600001)(66446008)(186003)(66556008)(64756008)(16526019)(44832011)(110136005)(33656002)(8936002)(5660300002)(52536014)(786003)(316002)(66946007)(81166006)(9686003)(6512007)(2906002)(86362001)(66476007)(6486002)(956004)(8676002)(26005)(52116002)(81156014)(90706001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM6PR01MB4038; H:AM6PR01MB4181.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: unibo.it does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <FEB2AF5AD01B1A458B746E8818C47D50@eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: unibo.it
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: ce7caffe-7c53-483c-453d-08d7a0b087eb
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Jan 2020 09:33:55.5543 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: e99647dc-1b08-454a-bf8c-699181b389ab
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: H5hl5CbKltaUGMmxOMpCiEucuQdovmvSgHxmdnnTdQx9rUbzKfPGvLJk+WxABgPn1LF1lujGEQGEqJGVtRs9oQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM6PR01MB4038
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/keh1CvNihh9RqD_wbuG9OJY7-u4>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
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, 24 Jan 2020 09:34:02 -0000

Dear Fred,
    I fully agree with you on your analysis and on the consequent 
decision of letting "the market" make the choice. In the past I 
"voted" in favor of obsoleting BPv6, but this, a posteriori, proved 
to be a wrong tactical decision (I take my quote of responsibility 
for this, having voted in favor). I hope this time to be right.
Yours,
     Carlo


At 21:32 23/01/2020, Templin (US), Fred L wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>  boundary="_000_04d4a18d4df24f41ab77e1f72c99b41bboeingcom_"
>
>I appreciate Magnus' message that Scott is referring to here. Whether anything
>formally says "obsoletes" or not, BPv7 can move forward but usage of BPv6 can
>still continue where there is existing deployment.
>
>The BPv6/BPv7 scenario is both like and unlike that for IPv6 and 
>IPv4. Like the
>IPv6/IPv4 experience, IPv6 did not obsolete IPv4 because they are incompatible
>protocol versions. Unlike the IPv6/IPv4 experience, however, we are 
>still at the
>very earliest phases of DTN deployment, and IMHO new adopters will see the
>value in starting out with BPv7 and the technical mindshare will 
>naturally fall
>in line. So, I concur with Magnus' plan, and let's just let nature 
>take its course.
>
>Thanks - Fred
>
>From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Burleigh, Scott 
>C (US 312B)
>Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:25 AM
>To: Magnus Westerlund 
><magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; dtn@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
>
>That sounds fine to me, Magnus.  I need to post a revised draft anyway.
>
>Scott
>
>From: dtn <<mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org>dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On 
>Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
>Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:51 AM
>To: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>dtn@ietf.org
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
>
>WG,
>
>The current BPv7 documents (BPbis, BPSec and TCPCLv4) where 
>intending to obsolete BPv6 and the corresponding RFCs. However, due 
>to a mistake from my side I would recommend that we split the whole 
>obsoletion out from the publication of the BPv7 specifications.
>
>There are several reasons for this recommendation:
>-          First I missed to make an explicit call in the IETF last 
>call about the obsoletion and invoking the process.
>-          Secondly, as this would be the first time attempting to 
>use the process of obsoleting an IRTF stream document. It hasn't 
>been discussed in IETF in public, although IRSG has approved the 
>IRTF part, and we discussed it in IESG. However, there has been 
>concerns about the lack of public discussion in the IESG. Therefore, 
>I have been recommended to first announce this process and allow for 
>discussion and reply to any concern over it before applying it to 
>avoid any appeals.
>-          Announcing the discussion, responding to any feedback, 
>then redoing the IETF last calls will result in a delay of at least 
>month likely two. This will be a significant delay.
>
>To ensure that we can make progress and don't delay the publication 
>of BPv7 specifications my proposal is the following.
>
>-          BPbis, BPsec and TCPclv4 do not obsolete their BPv6 
>counter parts. Thus, making it possible to progress these 
>specification with minimal delay if any. If the WG agrees to this 
>plan and the authors BPbis and BPsec can submit a new draft within a 
>week (by 30 Jan) we should have no delay due to this.
>-          Then the WG can write a separate document requesting 
>making BPv6 historic. This document can then request the obsoletion 
>of the relevant RFCs. As there was a rough consensus on these 
>obsoletion we can actually ensure that this document correctly 
>describe the situation that development will occur in BPv7 and the 
>fact that usage of BPv6 will continue.
>
>So I would very much appreciate rapid feedback on this.
>
>I am very sorry about the complications and my errors in processing this.
>
>Magnus Westerlund
>TSV AD
>
>_______________________________________________
>dtn mailing list
>dtn@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn