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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:16:42 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Bundle Protocol Version 7
        Authors         : Scott Burleigh
                          Kevin Fall
                          Edward J. Birrane
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19.txt
	Pages           : 61
	Date            : 2020-01-16

Abstract:
   This Internet Draft presents a specification for Bundle Protocol,
   adapted from the experimental Bundle Protocol specification
   developed by the Delay-Tolerant Networking Research group of the
   Internet Research Task Force and documented in RFC 5050.

   This document is an update of the protocol described in RFC 5050,
   reflecting lessons learned.  For this reason it obsoletes RFC 5050,
   an IRTF-stream document.

   Note to the RFC editor: The Internet Research Task Force is
   requested to mark RFC 5050 as obsolete.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Brian Sipos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 16:54:48 +0000

Scott,
I just noticed in [1] that the table of "Administrative Record Type Codes" is not part of the IANA registry request for this RFC-to-be. Should the BPv7 RFC take over that IANA registry [2] from RFC7116 and RFC5050 similar to how the others are to be handled?
Thanks,
Brian S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19#section-6.1
[2] https://www.iana.org/assignments/bundle/bundle.xhtml#admin-record-types
________________________________
From: dtn <[email-masked]> on behalf of [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 13:16
To: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: [dtn] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis-19.txt

Abstract:

_______________________________________________
dtn mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn

---

From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:55:40 +0000

We could do that, but since this spec doesn't add any new entries to this table there didn't seem to be any necessity.  Adding a "BP version" column to the table will make sense eventually - maybe when we move on the BIBE draft - but I don't think it's needed at this time.  The bpv7 spec doesn't actually "take over" the existing registries, it just adds to them.

sent from my phone

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 8:54 AM -0800, "Brian Sipos" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Scott,

Abstract:

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 22:15:31 +0100

> 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

---

From: "Burleigh, Scott C (US 312B)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 21:47:27 +0000

We've been through that once.  Do we really have to do it all over again?

sent from my phone

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 08:24:41 +0000

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:
> 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.
> 
-- 
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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------