IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dtn] DTN addressing, routing, and ownership

"Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu> Mon, 13 July 2020 13:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>
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 B24EE3A120B for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 06:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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=jhuapl.edu
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 VGgDqcQJJIqv for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 06:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aplegw02.jhuapl.edu (aplegw02.jhuapl.edu [128.244.251.169]) (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 E048E3A120A for <dtn@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 06:57:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (aplegw02.jhuapl.edu [127.0.0.1]) by aplegw02.jhuapl.edu (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06DDsiIu120136 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:57:32 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhuapl.edu; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=JHUAPLDec2018; bh=ERb/fjT+EM6Lxmjte55XRSeo1+itHOmeKlf2ieHG1HE=; b=pnReoiWQ3KM5q8dFm5adaRcouD7qJFNqj+ESFq9dCWgasU7XXmLF4NPjmzwjzUl/RVvb 2sRY3JCPonPJqkLao5fDzSeeUW7CYnlDgW07+Q+pBwLcjQLeTAa5fvET1Uai60Y6uv0f 9GAS9bF8pJo3RJkmct8Nnx1k0OJ5Ia1kVvkGCGKnTtm7j1Qh5MJYfmx8Oh4Yq7A68BKi ATrTioQn65o3exUsYvxOJNjclXSZfyd5PCTs1yJjwrC4+q7R187ShvBmkhdQ+VLQgOki 1JSp7BkA9tibR4oeRIZGYHQQkJGxBDHPx2ZnmiCsVhXHf7cTX5s1UEJqyPsW1PGBmJ3D ew==
Received: from aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu (aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu [128.244.198.5]) by aplegw02.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 3279mwh9vb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <dtn@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:57:32 -0400
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFilteredBySendConnector: aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu
Received: from aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu (128.244.198.5) by aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu (128.244.198.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:57:31 -0400
Received: from aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([fe80::19f5:dcc5:c696:1a50]) by aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu ([fe80::19f5:dcc5:c696:1a50%25]) with mapi id 15.00.1497.006; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 09:57:31 -0400
From: "Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>
To: "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: DTN addressing, routing, and ownership
Thread-Index: AQHWTVTx85boqEKc/0KX1l4tcd8Z7ajwYw9ggACsSIuAADE/cIAARK9GgABMkECAAJD44IAAVUhXgAAMdtCAAMyxRIACstXggAg0BAKAAQM/gIABjETAgACM80CAADFSkIADvs7AgAAaEOA=
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:57:29 +0000
Message-ID: <86815474597745198fbc50366b7e27a3@aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
References: <MN2PR13MB356748622EBD29B0028737E19F910@MN2PR13MB3567.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>, <095534b510e44eeebe2d02865eafd10d@jpl.nasa.gov> <MN2PR13MB3567754EE9D8D3C7D19DBD259F6F0@MN2PR13MB3567.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>, <631c36b735934d7eb0df5873536b6ee4@jpl.nasa.gov> <MN2PR13MB35671B6724A93836F3F94F2C9F6F0@MN2PR13MB3567.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <6990ef88820a400f8c3be2c33310c5f6@jpl.nasa.gov>, <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801F585B226@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <MN2PR13MB356752E2F1BBB69FDDA274E79F6C0@MN2PR13MB3567.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>, <0e03648eb66849a68193d5a2e1ebcf3e@jpl.nasa.gov> <MN2PR13MB35670F9E35992C2008683B2B9F6D0@MN2PR13MB3567.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>, <d52af6dc5d4b4ec5a1fb9473598ea579@jpl.nasa.gov> <MN2PR13MB3567A58E070E00DCE177002C9F640@MN2PR13MB3567.namprd13.prod.outlook.com> <df0be49bf9124bcdbb8e0e74c510c280@jpl.nasa.gov> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801F585C2CF@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com> <058a85379305497fa5fadde67b83f9ad@jpl.nasa.gov> <6becf7a7504540c38e6a16c25ec870bd@aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu> <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801F585C7D1@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <38A5475DE83986499AEACD2CFAFC3F9801F585C7D1@tss-server1.home.tropicalstormsoftware.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [128.244.198.168]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_86815474597745198fbc50366b7e27a3aplex01dom1jhuapledu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235, 18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-13_11:2020-07-13, 2020-07-13 signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/xe8uyGQd8TSAEmhEVMCftew4IUs>
Subject: Re: [dtn] DTN addressing, routing, and ownership
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: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:57:36 -0000

One other comment on supported EID schemes:

The split between DEST and DST_PORT does indeed formally exist for the ipn EID scheme: node number and service number.  We could do the same sort of thing for the dtn scheme, but the WG has not yet reached consensus on the detailed syntax of dtn-scheme EIDs.  It's not that we haven't recognized this issue, it's that the issue is addressed in the EID schemes rather than in the protocol specification itself.

[EJB]  Looking at section 10.6 I see dtn: and ipn: as defined scheme names. Is there something that breaks if we also allow an http: scheme in this registry? For those simpler cases where late binding is *not* needed then a standard IP is fine, and otherwise a "host name" or loopback can be used for late binding instead.

[EJB] In no way am I suggesting to  not use dtn: or ipn:, but perhaps http: should also be included as a possibility?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email