[dtn] Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?

Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com> Fri, 20 September 2019 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF72712004C for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:02:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xDgGXSKGuY2M for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com (mail.tropicalstormsoftware.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1ECB0120019 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:02:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::48e4:acbb:6065:8168]) by tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com ([fe80::48e4:acbb:6065:8168%16]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Fri, 20 Sep 2019 17:02:23 +0100
From: Rick Taylor <rick@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
To: "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Marking RFC5050 as Obsolete?
Thread-Index: AQHVb8zJ4yFYQLaGbkWRYSuGB6CGYg==
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:02:22 +0000
Message-ID: <ecc5ee275929440b8b70d570451219a77dc5a176.camel@tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Evolution 3.32.1-2
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <79600AB0D67A104F873691B0F7E6B69E@home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/xax3S4-UbrujqN5rBZSiHFQBeAE>
Subject: [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: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:02:28 -0000

Hi All,

During the DTN interim meeting on Sept 18th, there was a discussion on
making RFC5050 obsolete or not. This discussion also happened at IETF
105 and the consensus of the room was to obsolete RFC5050.
This consensus was not formally called and verified on the mailing
list afterwards (although minutes were posted), and so this is the
purpose of this email.

It is well understood by the working group that there is existing
investment in RFC5050 implementations and installations, and that these
will not immediately move to BPv7 if RFC5050 is marked as obsolete. 
However, by doing so a strong signal is sent to industry that the
working group considers BPv7 as the replacement for RFC5050, and that
future effort by the working group will be directed solely at BPv7. 
This would not automatically preclude any work around supporting moving
from RFC5050 to BPv7 or interoperability, but such work would not be
considered a priority.

If the working group does not choose to mark RFC5050 as obsolete, we
are committing to maintain it as a suitable target for convergence
layers, addressing schemes, routing and management protocols, etc. that
may be standardised in the future by the working group.

Hence, here is the request: Should draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis
obsolete RFC5050?


Rick & Marc