Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Tue, 01 October 2019 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
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 4305F1209CB for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 08:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
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=ham 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 xU7t7IUxl9-R; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 08:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.163]) (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 8949A1209F6; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 08:50:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id x91Fo5H9027175; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 11:50:05 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-12.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.114]) by clt-mbsout-02.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id x91Fo0S6025686 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 1 Oct 2019 11:50:00 -0400
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-12.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 08:49:59 -0700
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Tue, 1 Oct 2019 08:49:59 -0700
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@tzi.org>
CC: "irtf-chair@irtf.org" <irtf-chair@irtf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
Thread-Index: AQHVcsnkoVBWvwlBjka178bErT77dKc7J5mAgAAqIQCAAXr48IABPhqA///yCgCACFlyAP//opEQ
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:49:59 +0000
Message-ID: <f15ca3e8e2a145e88343d778a47d3a03@boeing.com>
References: <ecc5ee275929440b8b70d570451219a77dc5a176.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com> <1376435003.14731004.1569226573419@mail.yahoo.com> <7DC9F8DB-00E1-47C6-8F05-93771AEE4B0C@tzi.org> <75A02579-9C5A-4692-86FA-B5B73AF84A2A@csperkins.org> <780D35E5-B4CA-4C77-A217-19034BB60EE8@gmail.com> <66CC5320-E483-4FC9-A610-1D79A899A704@tzi.org> <10753318-5C0A-4401-A028-EAB657CF9002@csperkins.org> <a2f26181a52848b59032e036fee0ea11@boeing.com> <396DBA23-B220-412B-8E89-B0E73993F382@tzi.org> <da135487a9f74feb85de07dd38db6078@boeing.com> <9b7cd0f263074b8ca1c35235f0eedacf@jpl.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <9b7cd0f263074b8ca1c35235f0eedacf@jpl.nasa.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: C038539D7837CA21057E94A3DE3FDFD581416523D8A7C46C5D412AC9EC1333962000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/uKRk1W6nXA92rEtyg3QtJCZhAEQ>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
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: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 15:50:13 -0000

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>om>; 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