Wednesday, October 5, 2022< ^ >
Meetecho has set the subject to: DTN IETF 113
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[16:51:17] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) Good afternoon
[16:51:57] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) Hello!
[16:52:21] <zulipbot> (Adam Wiethuechter) Hello hello
[16:53:47] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) Does anybody has the link to the latest version of the draft ?
[16:54:30] <zulipbot> (Adam Wiethuechter)
[16:54:43] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) Is it this one
[16:54:59] <zulipbot> (Rick Taylor) Yes it is - I've been on vacation so haven't had time to update
[16:55:12] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) got it thanks Adam
[16:55:43] <zulipbot> (Adam Wiethuechter) :-)
[16:55:56] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) Vacation? What is that? Was it approved by IAB?😊
[16:56:09] <zulipbot> (Rick Taylor) haha!
[16:56:40] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) IRTF always allows vacation :)
[16:56:53] <zulipbot> (Adam Wiethuechter) Vacation is lame - I just get sick
[16:56:53] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) Good day everyone!
[16:57:06] <zulipbot> (Rick Taylor) I got both!
[16:57:19] <zulipbot> (Rick Taylor) Vacation + Covid on the way home...  perfect!
[16:57:32] <zulipbot> (Adam Wiethuechter) Ewwww
[16:58:32] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) I still wear a half-mask respirator when in public... no 'rona for me, please.
[16:58:56] <zulipbot> (Rick Taylor) I definitely don't want it again after this...
[16:59:10] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) Ouch
[17:00:49] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) ack
[17:01:24] <zulipbot> (Alberto Montilla) Good day all.
[17:01:53] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) Hi Alberto
[17:10:31] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) It is one of the dependencies to move forward with routing
[17:10:44] <zulipbot> (Shawn Ostermann) NASA seems to consider potential changes to the standard to be URGENT
[17:19:13] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) why is it better to amend ipn as opposed to defining a new scheme?
[17:21:17] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) so ease to remember strings/vanity numbering is a driving force here?
[17:22:28] <zulipbot> (Erik Kline) I get 5.1.3 (backward compatibility), but one other option might be to leave "ipn:" as it is and add "eipn:" as this new approach?
[17:23:34] <zulipbot> (Samo Grasic) I agree with Scott J. Can Rick or Ed eleborate more on "why not a new 'ipn3' EID scheme?" part?
[17:24:58] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) what effect does the proposed draft have on late binding in the network?
[17:28:15] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) feel like ugly changes on configurations
[17:28:36] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) consider the changes to the underlying implementations, Jorge
[17:28:49] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) yup
[17:28:49] <zulipbot> (Erik Kline) assuming the 2nd category of error is also handled correctly
[17:29:39] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) Amen Joshua
[17:29:56] <zulipbot> (Erik Kline) are these legacy elements doing BPv7, though?
[17:34:56] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) One case could be that in the future organization A could use the services of organization B
[17:35:09] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) so interoperability is paramount
[17:35:49] <zulipbot> (Stuart Card) I am not raising my hand _yet_ to join the queue because the point I would like to raise is largely unrelated to those under current discussion, but I _do_ want to chime in once we move off the current point.
[17:36:21] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) And recall we are talking names, not addresses.
[17:36:34] <zulipbot> (Carsten Bormann) Sorry for missing background here: Who translates these optimized regional addresses (which omit the NA) into global addresses?  Is there a well-defined place for that in the architecture?  Does security like that translation?
[17:37:10] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) Carsten - there is no such well-defined function. IIRC it is left as configuration on the node.
[17:37:23] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) lets make sure we are clear about any imagined or real differences between bpv6 ipn scheme and bpv7 ipn scheme.
[17:37:44] <zulipbot> (Shawn Ostermann) That's a good point about the confusion between BP6 and BP7
[17:37:57] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) at present, none are defined, but the draft proposes some.
[17:39:08] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) you can, however, retain numbering across version migration, leading to easier adoption.
[17:39:21] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) or naming, in this case.
[17:45:56] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) so there can be no potential for multihoming then?
[17:46:40] vilg joins the room
[17:52:21] <zulipbot> (Ronny Bull) have to head out to teach, great discussions!
[17:53:54] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) not sure i have heard a salient argument as to modification vs new scheme yet.
[17:55:19] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) did the ccsds profile get published ?
[17:56:05] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) it is routing for internal review - will ilkely have 1 more iteration
[17:56:33] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) 👍
[17:56:46] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) CCSDS is meeting in 2 weeks and will have more info then
[17:58:21] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) i am confused as to why, in the long term, we are encouraging the deployment of multiple dtn networks which are inherently named in a non-interoperable way.
[17:59:21] <zulipbot> (Stuart Card) You mean, before the ink is even dry? ;-)
[17:59:44] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) 👆
[17:59:57] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) :)
[18:00:22] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) The original intent of IPN was small space networks - IIRC, the desire to use this more expansively (and to standardize on it) spurred this discussion.
[18:00:43] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) If we get IPN correct, it would (should) be the primary naming method
[18:01:09] <zulipbot> (Alberto Montilla) Folks, dropping. Great discussion.
[18:01:22] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) Scott is correct.  This lays waste to the existing networks.
[18:01:35] <zulipbot> (Samo Grasic) I agree with Scott B.
[18:01:56] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) "exiting networks"?
[18:02:09] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) *"existing"
[18:02:49] <zulipbot> (Jorge Amodio) great conversation
[18:03:02] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) Ed, yes, but lots of people drink tang, if you get my point.  There may be terrestrial dtns built which eventually would want to interoperate, and vice versa, with space networks.
[18:03:15] <zulipbot> (Erik Kline) ➕
[18:03:16] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) Yes, you read right.  Existing networks.
[18:03:28] <zulipbot> (Erik Kline) (+1 to great conversation, that is)
[18:03:41] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) Could I get a pointer to those networks?
[18:04:11] <zulipbot> (Stuart Card) "Terrestrial" inc. airborne? Then likely UAS nets.
[18:04:28] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) Sure, Ed.  I will harvest your email addy from the wg list, and mail you privately.
[18:04:42] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) Thank you!
[18:04:55] <zulipbot> (Edward Birrane) And a thank you to Carsten - great tool
[18:05:13] <zulipbot> (Samo Grasic) Thank you all for great conversation
[18:05:26] <zulipbot> (Scott Burleigh) Bye!
[18:05:26] <zulipbot> (Scott Johnson) And to all a good night.
[20:32:22] vilg leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!