Subject: [Hipsec] Next Steps for HIP

From: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: Wed Nov 26 08:31:01 2003

Hi Derek (and everyone else),

The reasoning behind this idea is that some parts of this=20
work (the publication of the experimental specs, basic mobility=20
and multihoming support, DNS interactions) are well-defined tasks
that are well-understood and subject to applied engineering.

Whereas, some items on the proposed charter (the use of DHTs for=20
HIT->Address mapping, perhaps rendezvous and proxy?) are much less=20
well-defined and might benefit from a concentrated effort in the=20
research community before coming to the IETF.

IETF WGs are good at refining well-understood ideas through cross-
area review, but they aren't necessarily a good forum for=20
advancing our thinking on technical issues, such as how/if a
complex algorithm can be applied to a complicated problem.

So, the idea would be to charter an IETF WG to do the well-defined
work, in parallel with efforts in the reasearch community to=20
better understand the more speculative items.  It is even possible
that an IRTF research group would make sufficient progress that we=20
could bring some of their output into the WG at a later stage.

Our goal is to use whatever structure(s) will best support this
work, and to work with the HIP community to decide which work
falls into which category.  If there is no work in one of the two
categories, we don't need to start that group.=20

This idea doesn't imply any change to the plan to publish the
HIP specs as experimental RFCs.

This isn't a done deal, so if the community believes that it=20
would work better to structure this work differently, we are
open to that.

Margaret

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of ext Derek Fawcus
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 6:01 PM
> To: Wasserman Margaret (NRC/Boston)
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Next Steps for HIP
>=20
>=20
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:41:44PM -0500,=20
> [email-masked] wrote:
> >=20
> > 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.
> >=20
> > Please let us know if there are any questions or comments.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> DF
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://honor.trusecure.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>=20