Re: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050

"Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu> Fri, 18 October 2019 18:25 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 3A29B1208DE; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:25:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 hef6rM1AfPqg; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aplegw01.jhuapl.edu (aplegw01.jhuapl.edu [128.244.251.168]) (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 D9B511208D6; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (aplegw01.jhuapl.edu [127.0.0.1]) by aplegw01.jhuapl.edu (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9IIN6aF078020; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:25:52 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jhuapl.edu; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=JHUAPLDec2018; bh=DowWMbfS29Oi0gwu83dlfDJsZphtjSGZMgvfzrC825E=; b=EpgvJWVep30cHrjFcIpn57Gl6L3NYEGVHvRVxUNlGVGy6r8irzDClbLH1pOJkjseezpz jZ9mc8+obq04yYdEzPS+VExqOHgdzUA+QuY3tV5Kk39rUlN+rSxeoZDx4Mu8a8a7G4sO ypQyeD7JnxZekK0reVAA8qSWFwJaa5BrXr+aWAa+oUoZnA6xFG+OQfB9TGuNZObZVdRD gj5OnH8Qgr3hHoE+doF15p/HZ+xqe4bR4uKNDx2M3twzKF6uphDnQCok4xi0oBvtdwVD dEMxFjn3n3oXVtMsMVseihiDDcbVkFCNHIDGIiS0+Qovr+6bW3caxfCWh2UP2QY/2m9Z zQ==
Received: from aplex02.dom1.jhuapl.edu (aplex02.dom1.jhuapl.edu [128.244.198.6]) by aplegw01.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 2vq18vkccn-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:25:52 -0400
X-CrossPremisesHeadersFilteredBySendConnector: aplex02.dom1.jhuapl.edu
Received: from aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu (128.244.198.5) by aplex02.dom1.jhuapl.edu (128.244.198.6) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:25:52 -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 15.00.1473.003; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:25:52 -0400
From: "Birrane, Edward J." <Edward.Birrane@jhuapl.edu>
To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
CC: "dtn-chairs@ietf.org" <dtn-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050
Thread-Index: AQHVhNRBBWoElLFA60SQkOBpkvz+6adg+p+A//++ciA=
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 18:25:51 +0000
Message-ID: <ca11b7a529af41329bf08514da51c82b@aplex01.dom1.jhuapl.edu>
References: <EC1EF7CB-3637-4DF4-A2CA-47902B4E3519@viagenie.ca> <5e4a6a1de45d42dc8f06f9678bd7c035@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <5e4a6a1de45d42dc8f06f9678bd7c035@boeing.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_ca11b7a529af41329bf08514da51c82baplex01dom1jhuapledu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: aplex02.dom1.jhuapl.edu
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-18_04:, , signatures=0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/xrQtyp71a76krs9cDNhjYzyLWmU>
Subject: Re: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050
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, 18 Oct 2019 18:25:56 -0000

I also support.

Edward J. Birrane, III, Ph.D.
Embedded Applications Group Supervisor
Principal Staff, Space Exploration Sector
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
(W) 443-778-7423<tel:(443)%20778-7423> / (F) 443-228-3839<tel:(443)%20228-3839>

From: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 2:20 PM
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>ca>; DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org>
Cc: dtn-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050

I appreciate the well thought-out rationale and support this proposal.

Fred

From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 3:19 AM
To: DTN WG <dtn@ietf.org<mailto:dtn@ietf.org>>
Cc: dtn-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:dtn-chairs@ietf.org>
Subject: [dtn] on obsoleting RFC5050


Hello,
based on the various inputs and good discussion on the mailing list regarding obsoleting RFC5050, the chairs have come to this conclusion. Please state your support or not so we can move forward.

Regards, Marc&Rick, co-chairs.

  *   RFC5050 is an experimental RFC, done in IRTF, while draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis will be a Standard track RFC, done in IETF. Different streams, different processes.
  *   we believe there is a strong consensus to not continue working on RFC5050 and not try to be backward compatible. RFC5050 implementations and deployments can continue as they see fit.
  *   IANA registries have their own life, whatever the stream or type of RFC they were created from. They can always be updated by a new RFC.
  *   Given that, we suggest the following steps:

     *   1) draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis would not obsolete RFC5050. Instead we would notify IRTF that draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis is an update of RFC5050. IRTF will decide what they want to do, if anything, with RFC5050.
     *   2) in the new version of the charter that we are currently working on, we will state clearly that there is no intent to work on or make compatible work with RFC5050 and related RFCs
     *   3) DTN working group document authors will review the IANA registries as they are today and request whatever modifications needed, which may include changing the policies, the content, the rules, …