Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Rechartering

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:22:40 -0500

Based on Gonzalo's latest email, I have picked this one back up.

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
>
> after discussing with our AD, we need to provide him with a proposal 
> for a new charter for the WG. The proposal needs to contain details on 
> the RFCs to be revised, the process we intend to follow to revise 
> them, and the timeline we are looking at.

Can someone take a crack at the new charter.

The RFCs: 4423 and 5201-6 will be revised.

Does 5538 need revision?

NAT traversal just got approved, and will we need to rev it? To what extent?

Same applies to Native-API.

Will bone, cert, hiccups, and via be stopped to align with the new work 
or continue as is?

That takes care of the official workgroup documents. Any from HIP-RG? 
Additional work (individual submissions) might also need to be looked 
at. Particularly IOT and RFID.

What about ORCHID and BEET? For BEET we already talked about rolling it 
into 5202-bis and wordsmithing around whether it is a new mode or not. I 
think what to do about ORCHID is the biggest orginazational question we 
have; will need the IESG about this one.

The process is:

Assign an editor to each.
Optionally a design team.
Publish a base-line draft.
Only editorial changes like pulling '2003' comments from 4423.
Start IETF issues tracking on base-line drafts
Boy do **I** have issues to vent :)
Major issues incorporated in draft by EOM January.
Issues closing by IETF 77. Only issues on changes should be accepted 
after this date. I.E. no new work.
IDs in IETF last call 30 days prior to IETF 78.
We have a party at IETF 78!

>
> In particular, we need to provide an answer to the following question: 
> what will be the process for analyzing the results of the HIP experiment,

A report from the 3 implementations covering:

Interop issues.
Usages (experimental and production)
Lessons learned: what is missing
Anything else?

> identifying changes to the HIP protocols suggested by that analysis 
> and incorporating those changes into the revised protocol documents?

We have actually done much of this and after I get 5201-bis-00 published 
(monday, I expect) I will get with Miika, Tobias, and Petri to put up 
the first cut of it.

How does this sound?

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 10:08:09 +0200

Hi Bob,

let's limit the scope of this effort to 4423 and 5201-6 for the time 
being. I would not like to spread our efforts too much. The only topics 
we should probably address in addition to those are BEET and ORCHIDs.

Your plan to produce the analysis documents and document the lessons 
learned sounds good. We just need to get them done! ;o)

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:43:59 -0500

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> being. I would not like to spread our efforts too much. The only 
> topics we should probably address in addition to those are BEET and 
> ORCHIDs.

That works for me.  I just wanted to get down what was the potential 
total scope so we could determine what we can actually accomplish.

>>> for a new charter for the WG. The proposal needs to contain details 
>>> on the RFCs to be revised, the process we intend to follow to revise 
>> Will bone, cert, hiccups, and via be stopped to align with the new 
>> work or continue as is?
>>
>> What about ORCHID and BEET? For BEET we already talked about rolling 
>> it into 5202-bis and wordsmithing around whether it is a new mode or 
>> not. I think what to do about ORCHID is the biggest orginazational 
>> question we have; will need the IESG about this one.
>>
>> The process is:
>>
>>> In particular, we need to provide an answer to the following 
>>> question: what will be the process for analyzing the results of the 
>>> HIP experiment,
>>
>> We have actually done much of this and after I get 5201-bis-00 
>> published (monday, I expect) I will get with Miika, Tobias, and Petri 
>> to put up the first cut of it.
>>
>>
>> How does this sound?
>>
>>
>
>