Subject: [Hipsec] Developing a todo list for getting HIP on the standards track

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:01:38 -0400

THE HIP EXPERIMENT IS A SUCCESS.

Or at least that is my position and I will hold to it.

Yes there are pieces that still need more work and more business cases 
are needed but it is time for the work to move to standards track which 
means work for many and time commitments.  Myself included.

So first which RFCs are impacted?  All the HIP RFCs?  For example, 5207 
is informational; does it need changes even while staying informational?

IMO ALL the other HIP RFCs (4423 included) will need to be reved.  So we 
have to look at them all to see what needs to be thought out (like the 
LSI discussion that I started to a small group and Miika has brought to 
the list) and what else is impacted.  For example, ORCHIDs (RFC4843) 
will either need to go to Standards as well or we will need to NOT 
reference ORCHIDs.

There is also the BEET draft that has timed out yet again.  I have 
already started working with Tim Polk on this an I spoke with Sheila 
Frankel about it thursday.  Tim has asked Sheila to give it an expert 
review.  Sheila wanted to know if all BEET is is tunnel without 
tunneling, and if so is it really worth saving those handful or 2 of 
bytes per packet.  Off the cuff, I responded that BEET is a header 
compression in the classical mode of header compressions.  That those 
that implemented HIP figured out that my original intent to run HIP over 
Transport mode had issues, and that Tunnel was better, but that the 
whole Tunnel header could be compressed out.  That there are use cases 
for HIP where that overhead IS an issue and so we should be allowed a 
tunnel compression mode.

Further we have actual experience with the Linux 2.6.27 kernel that 
IPsec and HIP can coexist.  That the presence of BEET mode support in 
the kernel is not a problem with IPsec implementations.  But it is clear 
at least to me that text is needed in draft 10 of BEET.

Anyway, I will begin to post areas of discussion on items we need to 
address in each of our documents and hope that editors will step forward 
(myself included) that will make the needed changes and shepard through 
the revised documents over the next year.

One other thing is will we need a charter revision?  If so, what 
political energy will be needed to accomplish this?   IMO, those that 
have invested time and money will want to see HIP through to Standards 
and will lend the effort to get this in place.

I am putting in my request to go to Stockholm.  At this point, though, I 
will not be attending Hiroshima (I have avoided asia venues because of 
Shabbos challenges, and for 2 years now Verizon has canceled all Q4 
non-sales travel, it took quite a bit for me to attend Minneapolis last 
year; Japan would never have gotten approved).

Kudos to all HIP authors, developers, testers, implmentors, and most 
importantly, chairs.