Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 24 January 2020 13:10 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 A3DCE120052 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 05:10:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 aik4liyLxYHp for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 05:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2088912003E for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 05:10:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sev.informatik.uni-bremen.de (sev.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.218.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 483zyv0yswzyYL; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:10:31 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR01MB418181084D25EC8028C9B164870E0@AM6PR01MB4181.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:10:31 +0100
Cc: "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>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 601564230.938834-604aa1a4e7d1461704465085f2e1977d
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <999ED1F0-8CA0-419B-B5A1-4FD6F9A77F4C@tzi.org>
References: <DB7PR07MB4572AF8FE67BBF4EDBB65B16950F0@DB7PR07MB4572.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <1330d49806c34eee8d8b96632cb787d9@jpl.nasa.gov> <04d4a18d4df24f41ab77e1f72c99b41b@boeing.com> <AM6PR01MB418181084D25EC8028C9B164870E0@AM6PR01MB4181.eurprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com>
To: Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/leyHTgLMX7iuL8QU98KEnIny8-I>
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 13:10:37 -0000
On 2020-01-24, at 10:33, Carlo Caini <carlo.caini@unibo.it> wrote: > > 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. What Magnus wrote is not proposing to revisit the decision to obsolete RFC 5050, but to make sure we do it in the right way procedurally. (FYI: On the IRTF side, we just decided in IRSG to agree to the request to obsolete.) Of course BPv6 does not magically vanish from the face of the earth. BPv6 will stay the Windows XP of bundle protocols for those who can’t upgrade. Marking BPv6 obsolete is a signal to the market: (1) BPv6 is not recommended for new work, having been replaced by BPv7. (2) there no longer is an intention to “maintain” BPv6 (it having been maintained by replacing it with BPv7). Maybe you can relate what was wrong, tactically, about your vote, so we can better understand what you are trying to say. Grüße, Carsten
- [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Birrane, Edward J.
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Carlo Caini
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Carsten Bormann