[dtn] bpbis

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Sat, 03 August 2019 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
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 E0F3112013E for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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=jpl.nasa.gov
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 TEuXFm0iaVd0 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov (ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.112]) (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 1A11012013C for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) by ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x73Kie0w097948 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:45:45 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jpl.nasa.gov; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=InSight1906; bh=oWZ4BlBZ+6KujUNMQi/KX9LtziSmHTKGwtpE7JvbSHc=; b=4jGMKULNFGoi1dfHAmXOJG0bJMJ70qbdgKxpQIC5SSLTHH4vV2bOOXjmu04Mj59luUWM Xyd2IvmRhy/JiL42VpZ8K0n23CvspWXIj/FM4b4lFPMK6AT7c/fG+x9t28WEWucX3LTH OPcVzmzf6J/G7e+9TKOwZToSzL1887qJZVMgYvUSrrtFLCM3CbjE5hEC7oyjXvr0nmTM pkDIKoRUUFjWKahIetKY/rDfOlBcq8xCbOSULL0z0pGCBMpyMEbn9s6RBWuDCrgBnwX+ hYdgfmdC8De0OgaDPUd1Bj+GlW//6rRaAqKTNGloIjiwF8GSlNte5bdrb8y/E/6vrL06 VA==
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (altphysenclup01.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.52]) by ppa01.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP id 2u57c8tav1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 13:45:44 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp40.RES.AD.JPL (ap-embx16-sp40.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.86]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id x73KjhT6003269 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL) for <dtn@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:45:43 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp40.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8956::8095:8956) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:45:42 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL ([fe80::4:f430:47b5:767b]) by ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL ([fe80::4:f430:47b5:767b%17]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.008; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:45:42 -0700
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: bpbis
Thread-Index: AdVKOd3AcBee6/NKRdKBVPxyjPDfZA==
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:45:42 +0000
Message-ID: <a0e8bf30b24f4620bd05c790b6fa3271@jpl.nasa.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [207.151.104.72]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_002_a0e8bf30b24f4620bd05c790b6fa3271jplnasagov_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: ap-embx16-sp40.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.86]
X-Source-Sender: scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-08-03_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908030248
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/tdlrkrrobzmRPSrukuURFpYE0bM>
Subject: [dtn] bpbis
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: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:45:49 -0000

Hi.  Attached is a proposed revision of the bpbis specification that I think addresses all the changes we agreed on in Montreal and in email to date.  Some notes:

1.  I have arbitrarily inserted language reflecting the direction in which I think WG sentiment is taking us on the questions of maximum hop limit, BPSEC mandate, and the CRC option.  I will be glad to change this language as we reach consensus on those questions.

2.  In the course of transcribing the registry rules from RFC6255 into section 10 I realized that in some cases the registry values we have defined in bpbis are different enough from existing registries to motivate the creation of new registries after all.  The proposed new registries are defined and RFC 6255 is obsoleted.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 9:52 AM
To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] bpbis: maximum hop limit

Hello,
  from our AD review of BPBis, there was a question on should there be a maximum hop limit, and if yes, what value should it be. There was some discussion today during the meeting, and it went towards specifying a maximum hop limit in BPbis, but there was almost no discussion on the possible value. So please provide your input here by replying to the list.

=======
Should there be a maximum hop limit in BPbis?  (expected answer: yes or
no)

If yes, what value should it be?  (expected answer: an unsigned integer
value)

Rationale for your answers?

=========

Thanks, Marc, co-chair.

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