Subject: [Hipsec] Next Steps for HIP

From: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: Tue Nov 25 13:08:01 2003

Hi Pekka and David,=20

Thanks for running an excellent HIP BOF at the Minneapolis IETF=20
meeting.  The BOF was well-run, and clearly there is a great
deal of community interest in pursuing work in this area.

On Wednesday evening, we were able to sit down with Pekka and
Vern Paxson to discuss next steps for HIP.  Our initial thoughts
had focused on whether the HIP effort would be more likely to=20
succeed if it were chartered as an IETF Working Group or as an=20
IRTF Research Group, but we fairly quickly concluded that some
parts of this work would best fit best in an IETF WG (publishing=20
the core specs, DNS interactions, etc.) while other parts are
fairly clearly research activities (HIT-to-locator mapping,=20
for example).

So, if there is no objection, we'd like to see the HIP community
put together two complementary charters:  One for an IETF WG
to do the more straight-forward engineering work, and one for
an IRTF RG to continue research in this area.

Please let us know if there are any questions or comments.

Thanks,

Thomas Narten and Margaret Wasserman
Internet Area Directors

---

From: [email-masked] (Derek Fawcus)
Date: Tue Nov 25 17:28:01 2003

> Please let us know if there are any questions or comments.

So what would the aims of the WG be?  To produce a informational RFC
describing the current state of play,  or to produce some standard
track RFCs?

Also to what extent would the two groups interact.  If standard track
documents are expected out of the IETF WG,  then are they to be held
as proposed standards pending the results of the IRTF RG,  or would
they be able to progress as is?

DF

---

From: [email-masked] (Jari Arkko)
Date: Wed Nov 26 04:55:01 2003

> describing the current state of play,  or to produce some standard

I think the intent has been all along to produce Experimental
RFCs. I'd be surprised if a split between an IETF and IRTF
group would change that.

--Jari

---

From: Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked] (Spencer Dawkins)
Date: Wed Nov 26 07:31:00 2003

This isn't a bad plan, of course. I guess I'm wondering (after the
BoF) if HIT-to-locator mapping really IS research - I thought this was
covered under the "we need operational guidance for usability and
deployability" thread.

I know we don't have a spec on how to do it, but does that make it
research? Or is the IRTF work to include PKI?

Did the back-of-the-dinner-napkin include a complete list of research
topics? What I remember from the BoF was that we had three specs that
were essentially ready to Last-Call for Experimental, and a bunch of
preliminary work - surely not all the preliminary work belongs in the
IRTF (else why have a WG? just so we can do a WG Last Call?)...

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 12:41 PM
Subject: [Hipsec] Next Steps for HIP

Hi Pekka and David,

Thanks for running an excellent HIP BOF at the Minneapolis IETF
meeting.  The BOF was well-run, and clearly there is a great
deal of community interest in pursuing work in this area.

On Wednesday evening, we were able to sit down with Pekka and
Vern Paxson to discuss next steps for HIP.  Our initial thoughts
had focused on whether the HIP effort would be more likely to
succeed if it were chartered as an IETF Working Group or as an
IRTF Research Group, but we fairly quickly concluded that some
parts of this work would best fit best in an IETF WG (publishing
the core specs, DNS interactions, etc.) while other parts are
fairly clearly research activities (HIT-to-locator mapping,
for example).

Thanks,

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://honor.trusecure.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec