Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19.txt

From: Brian Sipos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:34:10 +0000

Magnus,
Regarding TCPCL, in the current draft TCPCLv4 defines separate, version-specific registries for the code points in the protocol. The existing registries, except for TCPCL version number registry, are untouched and associated only with TCPCLv3. I assume that there is no harm in leaving registries for obsoleted RFCs since the links to the RFCs for each table/item are explicit.

________________________________
From: Magnus Westerlund
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 03:24
To: [email-masked]; scott.c.burleigh=[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; Brian Sipos
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19.txt

Hi Carsten,

The bundle protocol registries are defined in RFC 6255, RFC6258, RFC6257 and RFC
7116. See https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml

To my understanding BPbis are obsoleting only RFC 5050. Yes, it is updating the
formating, but not rules for the registry.

BPSec will obsolete RFC 6257. However, it will not use or depend on the three
registries that RFC 6257 created (Ciphersuite Numbers, Ciphersuite Flags, and
Ciphersuite Parameters and Results Type Registry) and instead creates one new
registry.

TCPclv4 will obsolete RFC 7242, which do need to take over being the responsible
document for the TCPcl registries which I did note just last week.

So, I think we are fine on the formalities here. Not depending on documents that
will be obsolete.

Cheers

Magnus

On Sun, 2020-01-19 at 22:15 +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> > The bpv7 spec doesn't actually "take over" the existing registries, it just
> > adds to them.
>
> Hmm.  So this spec depends on registries created by an obsoleted document,
> which among other things still defines the registry structure and, more
> importantly, the registry policies.
>
> I think it would be useful to “take over” these registries.
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> dtn mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn
--
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:55:00 +0000

HI,

Yes, no issues with leaving the old registries. 

/Magnus

From: Brian Sipos <[email-masked]> 
Sent: den 23 januari 2020 15:34
To: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>; [email-masked];
scott.c.burleigh=[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19.txt

Magnus,

Regarding TCPCL, in the current draft TCPCLv4 defines separate,
version-specific registries for the code points in the protocol. The
existing registries, except for TCPCL version number registry, are untouched
and associated only with TCPCLv3. I assume that there is no harm in leaving
registries for obsoleted RFCs since the links to the RFCs for each
table/item are explicit.

  _____  

From: Magnus Westerlund
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 03:24
To: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ;
scott.c.burleigh=[email-masked]
<mailto:scott.c.burleigh=[email-masked]> 
Cc: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> ; Brian Sipos
Subject: Re: [dtn] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19.txt 

Hi Carsten,

The bundle protocol registries are defined in RFC 6255, RFC6258, RFC6257 and
RFC
7116. See https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml

To my understanding BPbis are obsoleting only RFC 5050. Yes, it is updating
the
formating, but not rules for the registry. 

BPSec will obsolete RFC 6257. However, it will not use or depend on the
three
registries that RFC 6257 created (Ciphersuite Numbers, Ciphersuite Flags,
and
Ciphersuite Parameters and Results Type Registry) and instead creates one
new
registry. 

TCPclv4 will obsolete RFC 7242, which do need to take over being the
responsible
document for the TCPcl registries which I did note just last week.  

So, I think we are fine on the formalities here. Not depending on documents
that
will be obsolete. 

Cheers

Magnus

On Sun, 2020-01-19 at 22:15 +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]> 
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

<mailto:[email-masked]>