Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Colin Perkins <> Mon, 23 September 2019 11:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E780712080A for <>; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 04:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ieHO-XYYGKP5; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 04:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED9C2120073; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 04:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (port=60635 by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1iCMfD-0000Vz-Al; Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:37:59 +0100
From: Colin Perkins <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_40906207-4F2C-460F-9D17-104060AD4A2C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:37:47 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>,
To: Carsten Bormann <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 24
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 11:38:03 -0000

> On 23 Sep 2019, at 11:28, Carsten Bormann <> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2019, at 10:16, <> wrote:
>> Explicitly obsolete RFC5050? Do you really want to do this?
> Yes.
> Generally, when experimental protocols are replaced by standards-track protocols, we mark the RFC documenting the experimental protocol as obsoleted by the RFC documenting the standards-track protocol.  E.g., see RFC 3940(*) and RFC 5740.  That, of course, doesn’t mean the *experiment* is “obsolete”, the experiment is done and was a great success, and has led to the standards-track protocol.
> The fact that the obsoleted protocol specification was documented in a different process (here, in the IRTF stream) is not really relevant.  Of course, obsoleting the document in the RFC series doesn’t mean that other SDOs (here: CCSDS) magically also consider it obsoleted; that may be work that needs to be done.
> I’m CCing the IRTF chair for another opinion on whether there is a problem with a IETF specification obsoleting an experimental IRTF protocol specification.  To me, it is obvious that the DTN WG was set up to do exactly that, and there were a few years to stop this process if this outcome wasn’t desired.

The RFC stream managers and RFC Editor had a discussion about this recently. It doesn’t seem problematic for a standards track RFC published on the IETF stream to obsolete an experimental RFC published by the IRTF, provided there’s coordination between the RFC stream managers and agreement that such a status change is appropriate. I’d expect the IESG to check with the IRTF Chair and IRSG before approving such a draft, for example.

I’ve not read the documents in question, so I won’t comment on this specific case. 


Colin Perkins