Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
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 1D9B3120C10 for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:32:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.298 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
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 74I4MEge1MMg for <dtn@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (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 3CCF0120970 for <dtn@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 00NKWPKl027218; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:32:32 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1579811552; bh=Nq+GjzWgpNfbZuYBWeR4P5S99RQWB2270mWZRBMDjD8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LQunpyLhgV1LEaBWtvPY5fX2DHqnF8H2Q/lAUB9d3xYdR2yT9wUjOYWS4Kvyc7A43 sbOH+07E+HH1F82oy7NAzFGP9IrlF+GvDTqZNfPYucUryGQIb+lBjs7W1cQADQ5AU8 ndcDjyF3Hap0a3LLYiASpgt75n8XBY4yeLGgCmXtexiIPrzkFsHzBet7OBm1VMvV7D 9lpW75h2ZP9DsblcLL9m/CglfL08+bLg85Ikjl+wUytYVeLUSgZzLZ2OOrH0kTFP/V euT995XHwFPiOk8TdcjhYmTupGA5iDugkSZWuUJZ+t0RclZ4+pGfLfDcgEvKxCg7KH XxWgMHUo6kyng==
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-10.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.112]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 00NKWNqG027192 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 15:32:24 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.1779.2; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:32:22 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::e065:4e77:ac47:d9a8%2]) with mapi id 15.01.1779.002; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:32:22 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <scott.c.burleigh=40jpl.nasa.gov@dmarc.ietf.org>, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dtn@ietf.org" <dtn@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
Thread-Index: AdXSDjH7/asJfpuQSwKX57wSGA6pTAADB+zgAAPx/wA=
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 20:32:22 +0000
Message-ID: <04d4a18d4df24f41ab77e1f72c99b41b@boeing.com>
References: <DB7PR07MB4572AF8FE67BBF4EDBB65B16950F0@DB7PR07MB4572.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <1330d49806c34eee8d8b96632cb787d9@jpl.nasa.gov>
In-Reply-To: <1330d49806c34eee8d8b96632cb787d9@jpl.nasa.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: B68192EB1CD0CC0FEC89FA4E0EC8786821190B69FD88283C1242ED55EE26B8FC2000:8
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_04d4a18d4df24f41ab77e1f72c99b41bboeingcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/yoPbSid8MFsdHS5r3yq6DyZjv0g>
Subject: Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6
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, 23 Jan 2020 20:32:39 -0000
I appreciate Magnus' message that Scott is referring to here. Whether anything formally says "obsoletes" or not, BPv7 can move forward but usage of BPv6 can still continue where there is existing deployment. The BPv6/BPv7 scenario is both like and unlike that for IPv6 and IPv4. Like the IPv6/IPv4 experience, IPv6 did not obsolete IPv4 because they are incompatible protocol versions. Unlike the IPv6/IPv4 experience, however, we are still at the very earliest phases of DTN deployment, and IMHO new adopters will see the value in starting out with BPv7 and the technical mindshare will naturally fall in line. So, I concur with Magnus' plan, and let's just let nature take its course. Thanks - Fred From: dtn [mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B) Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 10:25 AM To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; dtn@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 That sounds fine to me, Magnus. I need to post a revised draft anyway. Scott From: dtn <dtn-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:dtn-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:51 AM To: dtn@ietf.org<mailto:dtn@ietf.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 WG, The current BPv7 documents (BPbis, BPSec and TCPCLv4) where intending to obsolete BPv6 and the corresponding RFCs. However, due to a mistake from my side I would recommend that we split the whole obsoletion out from the publication of the BPv7 specifications. There are several reasons for this recommendation: - First I missed to make an explicit call in the IETF last call about the obsoletion and invoking the process. - Secondly, as this would be the first time attempting to use the process of obsoleting an IRTF stream document. It hasn't been discussed in IETF in public, although IRSG has approved the IRTF part, and we discussed it in IESG. However, there has been concerns about the lack of public discussion in the IESG. Therefore, I have been recommended to first announce this process and allow for discussion and reply to any concern over it before applying it to avoid any appeals. - Announcing the discussion, responding to any feedback, then redoing the IETF last calls will result in a delay of at least month likely two. This will be a significant delay. To ensure that we can make progress and don't delay the publication of BPv7 specifications my proposal is the following. - BPbis, BPsec and TCPclv4 do not obsolete their BPv6 counter parts. Thus, making it possible to progress these specification with minimal delay if any. If the WG agrees to this plan and the authors BPbis and BPsec can submit a new draft within a week (by 30 Jan) we should have no delay due to this. - Then the WG can write a separate document requesting making BPv6 historic. This document can then request the obsoletion of the relevant RFCs. As there was a rough consensus on these obsoletion we can actually ensure that this document correctly describe the situation that development will occur in BPv7 and the fact that usage of BPv6 will continue. So I would very much appreciate rapid feedback on this. I am very sorry about the complications and my errors in processing this. Magnus Westerlund TSV AD
- [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Birrane, Edward J.
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Carlo Caini
- Re: [dtn] Regarding BPv7 Obsoleting BPv6 Carsten Bormann