Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] IANA section on bpbis

"Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov> Thu, 24 October 2019 05:00 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
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 A6D9612000F; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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=jpl.nasa.gov
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 Cn3rNflJ8U_h; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov (ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.113]) (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 04C3C1201EF; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov [127.0.0.1]) by ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9O50Z06011779; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:00:35 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jpl.nasa.gov; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=InSight1906; bh=NuzWkPPeA47W4NO5eLzYCgjsIP1ogOd5+zA6XDuMShQ=; b=4xKaT+gpzgUxP3SnXlf8bAvyx2SSE8uZyZJJQ0Epf2QRat9U+n1AjdVtjK6DAne4kmx1 8SLnbOKlxWFQ12m6VgXvpLlVDV2XmE7ZNkaZH6O08TWcSLF1aUQkWyPjs2sAPE1e2Qqa wMOaZSMe593GRAftX6HcUhweRUx6aopO3tl5Z7y4hcoIh6960N9gMvzNbOkMWIiMgafj xW0zJEhDp7wAaTG9pGNrMx9AopteN5J6HSKLgmsxCitpF98v1UaTInSTYSohY+9tE9eK w72207cHN3tyipYowDhNnpxeKG1Bp1rQ9GhPKaeyYAQ8YgL03fbkvFeZ8N4pqZx90sr6 Ng==
Received: from mail.jpl.nasa.gov (altphysenclup02.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.53]) by ppa02.jpl.nasa.gov with ESMTP id 2vu2m4gc58-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:00:34 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (ap-embx16-sp10.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.83]) by smtp.jpl.nasa.gov (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id x9O50YPl004265 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128 bits) verified FAIL); Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:00:34 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) by ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL (2002:8095:8953::8095:8953) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:00:33 -0700
Received: from ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL ([fe80::4:f430:47b5:767b]) by ap-embx16-sp10.RES.AD.JPL ([fe80::4:f430:47b5:767b%17]) with mapi id 15.01.1591.008; Wed, 23 Oct 2019 22:00:33 -0700
From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
CC: "draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] IANA section on bpbis
Thread-Index: AQHVifcuNOEM6vpHnUGC8tWPdYRJYqdpOqkw
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:00:33 +0000
Message-ID: <ef5dac649278489fafbf76564e6e5806@jpl.nasa.gov>
References: <446672A9-FE07-4C98-A718-B7AF7283A324@viagenie.ca> <644976936e18d8c9e9831ae8d289dfaaa70d05d9.camel@ericsson.com> <D10B88C7-4321-43C2-A33B-A7D7D3EF0210@viagenie.ca> <40551dcfdc944b3e976b97d3aaa84220@jpl.nasa.gov> <39E810BE-4358-46A5-A8C7-FB689670A740@viagenie.ca>
In-Reply-To: <39E810BE-4358-46A5-A8C7-FB689670A740@viagenie.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [207.151.104.72]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Source-IP: ap-embx16-sp10.jpl.nasa.gov [128.149.137.83]
X-Source-Sender: scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov
X-AUTH: Authorized
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-10-24_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1910240046
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/yYKYkTC31c3-G52F-ICHGM9MKJQ>
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] IANA section on bpbis
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: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 05:00:39 -0000

Personally, I don't see a coherent set of enum values for the two specifications as a significant advantage, as mapping between the two should be trivial and is in any case a very minor aspect of gatewaying between the protocols.  But I will of course go with whatever the WG decides.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>; 
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:11 PM
To: Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>;
Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org; dtn@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] IANA section on bpbis

On 24 Oct 2019, at 0:35, Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) wrote:

> On re-reading these proposals for merging registries more closely, I 
> realize that they actually constitute significant changes to the BPv7 
> protocol specification.  Notably, the proposal to merge the bit flag 
> values for bundle processing control flags would require that each
> BPv7 primary block contain a 3-byte control flags field -- rather than 
> a 2-byte field -- to accommodate 6 bits of BPv6 class of service 
> indication that the WG has agreed not to include in the BP 
> specification; we will be wasting 1 byte of every bundle to preserve 
> bit flag position compatibility with RFC 5050.

I think one byte is not a big deal. It also provides more room for future assignments. Considering that I’ve seen DTN bundle payloads containing non-compressed XML or deployments sending Video over RTP over DTN, I think this one byte is not an issue.

>
> Also the block numbers assigned to extension blocks are changed for 
> compatibility with RFC 5050; not a huge deal, but this will 
> temporarily break all existing implementations of BPv7.  (The other 
> changes are less disruptive.)

well. In fact, the proposed numbers by the author in an internet-draft are never garanteed until IANA creates/updates the registry when the RFC is in the RFC-editor queue (i.e. after IESG approval). Changing an enum value in an implementation is a question of one minute. There is to my knowledge no deployment of BP7 yet, nor commercial products of BP7. 
However, having a coherent set of enum values for both BP6 and BP7 is to me a great advantage for implementations.

>
> I can certainly go ahead and make all these changes, but I want to 
> confirm with the WG that this is what we want to do.

let’s see what others think.

Marc, as individual.


>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>;
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 4:45 AM
> To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>;; Burleigh, 
> Scott C (US 312B) <scott.c.burleigh@jpl.nasa.gov>;
> Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis@ietf.org; dtn@ietf.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dtn] IANA section on bpbis
>
> Magnus and Scott,
>   all fine, please proceed!
>
>   Scott, please make sure to review not only the IANA Considerations 
> section, but also the text in the referred sections so everything is 
> in sync.
>
> Marc.
>
> On 23 Oct 2019, at 13:23, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have reviewed your proposal Marc. I think most of it works but 
>> there are  few things I do wonder over or think should be addressed.
>>
>>
>> 10.6: This is a BP specific registry. As this encodes the URI schemes
>> into the
>> protocol in a short form. This is not the same as the URI scheme
>> registry.
>>
>> Thus, I don't see how it can be skipped.
>>
>> But, maybe the name of the registry should be "Bundle Protocol URI
>> Scheme Type
>> Registry".
>>
>> 10.7 I already responded seperately to Scott's question. But, I think
>> the WG do
>> need to update the IANA Registration of the DTN URI scheme 
>> considering
>> that it
>> is provisional and lacks a correct reference to its actual 
>> syntactical
>> definition.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Magnus Westerlund
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Networks, Ericsson Research
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
>> Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
>> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------