Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-14.txt: IANA Considerations section

Marc, I have no opinion at all as to where these registry definitions should reside, but one note of clarification: the only registries for which the new Section 10 text requests creation are new registries that are different enough from the existing registries to conflict with the original definitions (some registry entries are explicitly reserved rather than defined, bit positions are different, etc.).  In a couple of cases it’s noted that the registries already exist; there we’re just transcribing the definitions of those registries and adding some new entries.

Scott

From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 6:13 AM
To: dtn@ietf.org
Cc: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-14.txt: IANA Considerations section

Hello,
I respectfully disagree with our AD on his suggestion for the IANA considerations section on BPBIS.

  *   Before (-13), the IANA Considerations section was adding a few codepoints to a registry and defining another registry. typical. Straightforward.
  *   The current IANA registries for DTN have been defined by RFC6255, RFC6257, RFC6258, RFC7116 and RFC7242. They represent multiple specifications, and real use in the field.
  *   My understanding of AD suggestion was to import text from RFC6255 into BPbis, obsolete RFC6255 and then essentially asking to « recreate » some of the IANA registries.

I don’t see any value in this suggestion. On the contrary, I see confusion. IANA registries are typically created, populated, changed by a sequence of RFCs. The fact that in this case, the initial set of RFCs were from an RG and there were from an experimental protocol to me does not mean they have less value or change anything. 6255 is informational. The registries were created, were used and we continue using them in the next version of the protocol, with one where we add a few codepoints.

Therefore, (I’m sorry Scott), but I would suggest that we revert the IANA Considerations section to the previous version.

(As our AD said he is now in vacation for some weeks, I expect his reply somewhat later this month).

Marc.

On 4 Aug 2019, at 15:59, internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking WG of the IETF.

Title : Bundle Protocol Version 7
Authors : Scott Burleigh
Kevin Fall
Edward J. Birrane
Filename : draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-14.txt
Pages : 61
Date : 2019-08-04

Abstract:
This Internet Draft presents a specification for Bundle Protocol,
adapted from the experimental Bundle Protocol specification
developed by the Delay-Tolerant Networking Research group of the
Internet Research Task Force and documented in RFC 5050.

It obsoletes RFC 5050 and RFC 6255.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-14
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-14

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-14

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list
dtn@ietf.org<mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn