Subject: RE: [Hipsec] RE: comments on native HIP API draft

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 08:57:46 -0700

Readers of this thread may be interested to note that discussion has
spilled over to two additional lists:

apps-discuss (thread starts here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/discuss/current/msg00496.html)
RAM (thread starts here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ram/current/msg01331.html) 

-Tom

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:40:38 +0300

Hi,

it is good to have discussions on the API draft. We also need to 
schedule the start of its WGLC. How does the beginning of June sound? 
That would give us two weeks to have a stable version of the draft 
before WGLCing it.

If you think this time plan is too aggressive, let me know.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Andrew McGregor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:31:59 +1200

I think the substance of the comments so far require a fair bit of a  
rethink, or else a new draft to follow on more general C API  
matters.  So maybe it's premature to WGLC it yet before we can  
differentiate those two paths.

Andrew

On 14/05/2007, at 7:40 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

> schedule the start of its WGLC. How does the beginning of June  
> sound? That would give us two weeks to have a stable version of the  
> draft before WGLCing it.
>
>> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ram/current/msg01331.html) -Tom

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:48:23 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Andrew McGregor wrote:

Agree. The design is going to change quite much because the apps folks 
seemed to think that the ULID should be HIT, and not endpoint descriptor. 
I would like to have an intermediate version for proper review and 
polishing. The two week timeframe is too short for me, would it be fine to 
follow the normal IETF cut-off DL? I'll make also a pre-version for early 
comments.

> I think the substance of the comments so far require a fair bit of a rethink, 
> or else a new draft to follow on more general C API matters.  So maybe it's 
> premature to WGLC it yet before we can differentiate those two paths.
>
> Andrew
>
>> it is good to have discussions on the API draft. We also need to schedule 
>> the start of its WGLC. How does the beginning of June sound? That would 
>> give us two weeks to have a stable version of the draft before WGLCing it.
>> 

-- 
Miika Komu                                       http://www.iki.fi/miika/

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 15:14:04 +0300

Hi,

what I would like to have is a rough time plan so that I can update our 
charter appropriately.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Miika Komu wrote:
> rethink,
> schedule

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:11:06 +0300 (EEST)

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

I'd suggest the Chicago IETF as DL for the next revision of the draft. The 
WGLC could the Vancouver IETF because I doubt how much feedback we'll 
receive during summer time. If necessary, we can make the second DL 
earlier, but not the first one.

---

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 07:57:11 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew McGregor [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 3:32 AM
> To: Gonzalo Camarillo
> Cc: Henderson, Thomas R; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec] RE: comments on native HIP API draft
> 

I agree.  Based on the feedback, there are probably two documents
eventually needed (C-based API with HITs explicit, and longer term,
higher-level API that is more abstracted than the present draft).  We
have a draft right now that sits somewhere in the middle of those two
goals, based on the feedback on the other lists.  It seems to me that
both approaches are worthwhile to do, but we have drafts of neither
right now.  So I think that June is too aggressive.

I would like to see the explicit HIT-based API done this year, and I
think the other one will take a bit longer and require some prototyping.

Tom

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:33:06 +0300

Hi,

> higher-level API that is more abstracted than the present draft).

what are the arguments to write the long-term draft in the WG, as 
opposed to doing it in the RG?

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:21:59 -0700

> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:33 AM
> To: Henderson, Thomas R
> Cc: [email-masked]; Andrew McGregor

Gonzalo, I forgot to reply to this message from last week.  It seems to
me that the WG ought to first see what revised draft(s) emerge before
deciding this question.

Tom

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:14:26 +0300

Hi,

well, scope decisions could be made before writing the drafts... but 
anyway, we can wait until the drafts are out there.  No problem.

Cheers,

Gonzalo