Probabilistic Routing Protocol for Intermittently Connected Networks
draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-06-19
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Qualcomm Incorporated's Statement about IPR related to draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-10 | |
2012-06-18
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-06-11
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on Authors |
2012-06-11
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-06-11
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-06-11
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-06-11
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-06-05
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-05-29
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-05-22
|
10 | Elwyn Davies | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-10.txt |
2012-05-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-05-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-05-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-05-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-05-21
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-05-21
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] The authors ask me to note that there is a typo in the IANA considerations section. Current: | Private/Experimental Use | 0x80 - … [Ballot comment] The authors ask me to note that there is a typo in the IANA considerations section. Current: | Private/Experimental Use | 0x80 - 0xFF | Experimental | Should be: | Private/Experimental Use | 0x80 - 0xFE | Experimental | The IRTF and RFC editor are asked to note this and make the change. --- The following comments are provided for consideration by the ISE and document authors in case they can be used to improve the document. I think that some clarity could be added to the IANA work by clarifying the meaning of "Experimental" ranges and other ranges (using the 5226 allocation policies) in the light of this document itself being an Experimental document. --- PRoPHET is an Experimental protocol. That is good. Implementers and researchers would benefit from some description and advice on how best to experiment with the protocol. What constraints should be applied in terms of interaction with "the Internet"? What sort of information should experimenters be hoping to gather? What further protocol work is needed? How would we assess whether PRoPHET is worthy of standardising? |
2012-05-21
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2012-05-21
|
09 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-09 and has the following comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that a new namespace is to be created for … IANA has reviewed draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-09 and has the following comments: Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that a new namespace is to be created for the PRoPHET protocol. IANA understands that this would be a new entry in the IANA Matrix located at: http://www.iana.org/protocols/ IANA understands that there are thirteen new subregistries of the master PRoPHET protocol registry. For ALL of the new subregistries, IANA understands that future management of the registries will be through Specification Required as defined in RFC 5226. In the actions below, IANA understands that all the registries and their initial assignments are to be done as subregistries of the master PRoPHET registry. First, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "DTN Routing Protocol Number" registry. There are initial values in the registy: +--------------------------+-----------+------------------------+ | Protocol | Value | Reference | +--------------------------+-----------+------------------------+ | PRoPHET Protocol | 0x00 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0x01-0xEF | Specification required | | | | | | Private/Experimental use | 0xF0-0xFE | Experimental | +--------------------------+-----------+------------------------+ Second, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "PRoPHET Protocol Version" registry. There are initial values in the registry. +------------------------------+-----------+------------------------+ | Version | Value | Reference | +------------------------------+-----------+------------------------+ | Reserved | 0x00 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Earlier Drafts | 0x01 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | This protocol | 0x02 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0x03-0xEF | Specification required | | | | | | Private | 0xF0-0xFE | Experimental | | | | | | Reserved for future | 0xFF | Specification required | | expansion | | | +------------------------------+-----------+------------------------+ Third, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "PRoPHET Header Flags" registry. There are initial values in the registry: +----------+--------------+------------------------+ | Meaning | Bit Position | Explanation | +----------+--------------+------------------------+ | Reserved | Bit 0 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Bit 1 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Bit 2 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Bit 3 | Specification required | +----------+--------------+------------------------+ Fourth, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "PRoPHET Result Field" registry. There are initial values in the registry: +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ | Result Value | Value | Reference | +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ | NoSuccessAck | 0x01 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | AckAll | 0x02 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Success | 0x03 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Failure | 0x04 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | ReturnReceipt | 0x05 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0x06 - 0x7F | Specification required | | | | | | Private/Experimental Use | 0x80 - 0xFF | Experimental | +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ Fifth, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "PRoPHET Codes for Success and Failure" subregistry. There are initial values in the registry: Success Codes: +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ | Code Name | Values | Reference | +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ | Generic Success | 0x00 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Submessage Received | 0x01 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0x02 - 0x7F | Specification required | | | | | | Private/Experimental Use | 0x80 - 0xFF | Experimental | +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ Failure Codes: +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ | Code Name | Values | Reference | +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ | Reserved | 0x00 - 0x01 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Unspecified Failure | 0x02 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0x03 - 0x7F | Specification required | | | | | | Private/Experimental Use | 0x80 - 0xFF | Experimental | | | | | | Error TLV in message | 0xFF | [ RFC-to-be ] | +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ Sixth, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "PRoPHET TLV Types" subregistry. There are initial values in the registry: +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ | Type | Value | Reference | +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ | Hello TLV | 0x01 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Error TLV | 0x02 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0x03 - 0x9F | Specification required | | | | | | RIB dictionary TLV | 0xA0 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | RIB TLV | 0xA1 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Bundle Offer | 0xA2 | (Deprecated) | | | | | | Bundle Response | 0xA3 | (Deprecated) | | | | | | Bundle Offer (v2) | 0xA4 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Bundle Response (v2) | 0xA5 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0xA6 - 0xCF | Specification required | | | | | | Private/Experimental Use | 0xD0 - 0xFF | Experimental | +--------------------------+-------------+------------------------+ Seventh, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "Hello TLV Flags" subregistry. The following note will be added to the front of the subregisty: The following TLV Flags are defined for the Hello TLV by [ RFC-to-be ]. Flag numbers 0, 1 and 2 are treated as a three bit unsigned integer with five of the eight possible values allocated and the other three reserved. The remaining bits are treated individually: There are initial values in the registry: +----------+-------------------+------------------------+ | Meaning | Value | Reference | +----------+-------------------+------------------------+ | | (Flags 0,1 and 2) | | | | | | | Reserved | 0b000 | Do not allocate | | | | | | SYN | 0b001 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | SYNACK | 0b010 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | ACK | 0b011 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | RSTACK | 0x100 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0b101 - 0b111 | Specification required | | | | | | | (Flags 3 - 7) | | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 3 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 4 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 5 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 6 | Specification required | | | | | | L Flag | Flag 7 | [ RFC-to-be ] | +----------+-------------------+------------------------+ Eighth, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "Error TLV Flags" subregistry. The following note will be added to the front of the subregisty: The TLV Flags field in the Error TLV in [RFC-to-be] is treated as an unsigned 8 bit integer encoding the Error TLV number. There are initial values in the registry: +---------------------+------------------+------------------------+ | Error TLV Name | Error TLV Number | Reference | +---------------------+------------------+------------------------+ | Dictionary Conflict | 0x00 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Bad String ID | 0x01 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | 0x02 - 0x7F | Specification required | | | | | | Private | 0x80 - 0xFF | Experimental | +---------------------+------------------+------------------------+ Ninth, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "RIB Dictionary TLV Flags" subregistry. There are initial values in the registry: +------------------+--------------+------------------------+ | Meaning | Bit Position | Reference | +------------------+--------------+------------------------+ | Sent by Listener | Flag 0 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 1 | Reserved | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 2 | Reserved | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 3 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 4 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 5 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 6 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 7 | Specification required | +------------------+--------------+------------------------+ Tenth, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "RIB TLV Flags" subregistry. There are initial values in the registry: +---------------+--------------+------------------------+ | Meaning | Bit Position | Reference | +---------------+--------------+------------------------+ | More RIB TLVs | Flag 0 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 1 | Reserved | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 2 | Reserved | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 3 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 4 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 5 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 6 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 7 | Specification required | +---------------+--------------+------------------------+ Eleventh, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "RIB Flags" subregistry. There are initial values in the registry: +----------+--------------+------------------------+ | Meaning | Bit Position | Reference | +----------+--------------+------------------------+ | Reserved | Flag 0 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 1 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 2 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 3 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 4 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 5 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 6 | Specification required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 7 | Specification required | +----------+--------------+------------------------+ Twelfth, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "Bundle Offer and Response TLV Flags" subregistry. There are initial values in the registry: +------------------------------+-------------+----------------------+ | Meaning | Bit | Reference | | | Position | | +------------------------------+-------------+----------------------+ | More Offer/Response TLVs | Flag 0 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | Following | | | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 1 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 2 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 3 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 4 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 5 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 6 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 7 | Specification | | | | required | +------------------------------+-------------+----------------------+ Thirteenth, a new PRoPHET subregistry will be created called the "Bundle Offer and Response B Flags" subregistry. There are initial values in the registry: +--------------------------------+------------+---------------------+ | Meaning | Bit | Reference | | | Position | | +--------------------------------+------------+---------------------+ | Bundle Accepted | Flag 0 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Bundle is a Fragment | Flag 1 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | | | | | Bundle Payload Length Included | Flag 2 | [ RFC-to-be ] | | in TLV | | | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 3 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 4 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 5 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | Reserved | Flag 6 | Specification | | | | required | | | | | | PRoPHET Ack | Flag 7 | [ RFC-to-be ] | +--------------------------------+------------+---------------------+ IANA understands that the creation of the PRoPHET master registry and the thirteen PRoPHET subregistries are the only actions required of IANA upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Amy Vezza | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Ballot comment text updated for Benoit Claise |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot comment] I thought that this was an interesting and novel experimental routing protocol and am thus voting yes. I intend to read it in … [Ballot comment] I thought that this was an interesting and novel experimental routing protocol and am thus voting yes. I intend to read it in close detail a further time, and if I have any comments that may improve the text, I will pass them to the authors and ISE. |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Slightly surprised by "No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised." in the abstract! If it passes the IESG, it's because … [Ballot comment] Slightly surprised by "No objections to its publication as an RFC were raised." in the abstract! If it passes the IESG, it's because no objections were raised. So it doesn't make sense in the abstract of this future RFC ;-) Along the same lines, not sure if it's appropriate to have the following sentence in the abstract: "This document is a product of the Delay Tolerant Networking Research Group and has been reviewed by that group." The RFC-editor should take the final decision on this one. |
2012-05-10
|
09 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-05-09
|
09 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-05-08
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] For this I'm either yes or else I recuse if that's the proper thing for an IRSG member and RG co-chair to do. … [Ballot comment] For this I'm either yes or else I recuse if that's the proper thing for an IRSG member and RG co-chair to do. I guess nobody knows (or cares:-) so I'll at least temporarily set a positive precedent. |
2012-05-08
|
09 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-05-08
|
09 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-05-07
|
09 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-05-07
|
09 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-05-07
|
09 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-05-06
|
09 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-05-02
|
09 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-05-02
|
09 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-04-30
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] The following comments are provided for consideration by the ISE and document authors in case they can be used to improve the document. … [Ballot comment] The following comments are provided for consideration by the ISE and document authors in case they can be used to improve the document. I think that some clarity could be added to the IANA work by clarifying the meaning of "Experimental" ranges and other ranges (using the 5226 allocation policies) in the light of this document itself being an Experimental document. --- PRoPHET is an Experimental protocol. That is good. Implementers and researchers would benefit from some description and advice on how best to experiment with the protocol. What constraints should be applied in terms of interaction with "the Internet"? What sort of information should experimenters be hoping to gather? What further protocol work is needed? How would we assess whether PRoPHET is worthy of standardising? |
2012-04-30
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot comment text updated for Adrian Farrel |
2012-04-29
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2012-04-29
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot has been issued |
2012-04-29
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-04-29
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-04-29
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was changed |
2012-04-29
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-04-29
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-04-29
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-04-22
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Telechat date has been changed to 2012-05-10 from 2012-04-26 |
2012-04-22
|
09 | Adrian Farrel | Responsible AD changed to Adrian Farrel from Russ Housley |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Hi, IESG secretary (BCC'ed), this is a request for the IESG to perform an RFC5742 review of the following draft from the DTNRG, to be … Hi, IESG secretary (BCC'ed), this is a request for the IESG to perform an RFC5742 review of the following draft from the DTNRG, to be published as an RFC on the IRTF Stream: - draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-09 (Experimental RFC) The document has been approved for publication by the IRSG. See http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/ticket/37 for details on prior reviews. Please copy all correspondence to the document shepherd, Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie). Thanks, Lars |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Note changed to 'IRTF Submission. Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie) is the document shepherd.' |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-04-26 |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Note added 'IRTF Submission. Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie) is the document shepherd.' |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | State Change Notice email list changed to andersl@sics.se, avri@acm.org, elwynd@folly.org.uk, samo.grasic@ltu.se, draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet@tools.ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Intended Status changed to Experimental |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | Resurrection was completed |
2012-04-19
|
09 | Russ Housley | Resurrection was requested |
2011-10-05
|
09 | (System) | Document has expired |
2011-04-03
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-09.txt |
2010-10-25
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-08.txt |
2010-08-12
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-07.txt |
2010-07-12
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-06.txt |
2010-02-18
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-05.txt |
2009-11-30
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-04.txt |
2009-11-20
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-03.txt |
2009-03-09
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-02.txt |
2008-11-17
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-01.txt |
2008-02-11
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-irtf-dtnrg-prophet-00.txt |