Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Scott, yes BPv6 per RFC5050 is an experiment that is still very much in progress and
publication of BPv7 as a standard will not in itself signal an end to the experiment.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) [mailto:scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 7:20 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>; Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
> Cc: irtf-chair@irtf.org; dtn@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
> 
> Maybe one additional consideration here is that IPv4 was (and remains) a standard, while BPv6 is not; RFC 5050 is an experimental
> RFC, not a standards-track RFC.  Is it reasonable to infer from this that IETF has no responsibility to sustain BPv6 in any event, that the
> clear intent of IETF is simply to establish and sustain BPv7 as a new standard?  In which case it is perhaps just unnecessary to mark RFC
> 5050 as obsolete?
> 
> Scott
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Templin (US), Fred L
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 6:58 AM
> To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
> Cc: irtf-chair@irtf.org; dtn@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
> 
> Actually, I like the IPv4 / IPv6 analogy but if you don't consider also that IPv4 did not "obsolete" OSI yet there are still small pockets of
> OSI deployment worldwide. (For that matter, I don't think anyone ever claimed to "obsolete" DECnet.) In this sense, by going out of
> our way to say "obsoletes" BPv7 would going against the precedence set by a number of significant earlier examples.
> 
> Fred
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 12:39 AM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > Cc: irtf-chair@irtf.org; dtn@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
> >
> > On Sep 25, 2019, at 21:52, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It is the same with BPv6 and BPv7 - there is a non-negligible
> > > deployment of BPv6 that will still continue after BPv7 is published whether we say "obsoletes" or not.
> > > There is operational experience with BPv6 that will continue onwards
> > > the same as happened with IPv4, and that is not a bad thing.
> >
> > There will always be protocols in real world use that have been replaced by newer ones.
> >
> > The question here is one of expressing intent.  Is BPv7 intended to supersede BPv6 or not?
> >
> > I’m not talking about “deployment realities” here (heck, I still have
> > some Python v2 on my system), I’m talking about intent going forward.
> > Either the intent is to sustain both versions indefinitely (with bug
> > fixes and extensions still going into BPv6), or the intent is to move
> > to BPv7.  Like with Python v3, which ultimately needed a strong statement (and even a deadline) that it is now time to stop using
> Python v2 (and even then, the Python v2 is not going to vanish from my systems magically, and there will likely be some people
> hacking v2 and keeping it alive even beyond 2020-01-01).
> > (We don’t need a deadline here, but we need to be clear about the
> > intent.)
> >
> > I don’t think IPv4 vs. IPv6 is a good analogy here, but if you have a
> > massive infrastructure processing BPv6 bundles, it may seem to be that way to you.
> >
> > Grüße, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> dtn@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn