Subject: [Hipsec] WGLCs: 4423bis and 5201bis

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:11:29 +0300

Folks,

I would like to start the WGLCs on the following two drafts. These WGLCs
will end on September 30th.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5201-bis/

In addition to technical comments, please also let the list know whether
you still care about these specifications. Given the low level of energy
in the WG, one of the issues the IESG will evaluate will be whether
there is still enough interest behind all these bis documents.

Please, send your comments to this mailing list.

Thanks,

Gonzalo
HIP WG co-chair

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:04:41 +0300

Hi,

> Please, send your comments to this mailing list.

I do care and I should have now time to comment.

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:18:36 +0300

Hi,

> I do care and I should have now time to comment.

besides me, there's also some other people who could help in the final 
push if we'd know more specifically what to do. Could somebody re-post 
what to comment or to check from the drafts?

If we need more complete reviews, we could split the work if there's 
volunteers?

---

From: Robert Moskowitz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 06:03:29 -0400

> If we need more complete reviews, we could split the work if there's 

Sec 11 of 5201-bis is a pretty good change section. Kudos to Tobias on that.

I did not do as good of a job with sec 13 in 4423-bis.

Of course this is what was changed and not what was left, but should 
have been changed.

So look at the changed sections, to understand the changes, then the 
whole document to see if it flows. I did that too many times to go back 
and do it again.

---

From: "Dr. Tobias Heer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 11:14:27 +0200

Hello,

> what to comment or to check from the drafts?
I think it would be good to check the general big-picture and how all 
parts play together. When redesigning the BEX and changing the HIT, we 
were careful to still maintain the properties of HIP. However, I think 
it woulr be best to have a close look at the general protocol mechanics 
to make sure that all parts are still in place. For 5201-bis, we have 
had some extensive reviews during the writing phase about a year ago. 
These reviews were generally very positive and the improvements that we 
have made to the text seem to add clarity. Since then only detail 
changes have been made. So I am quite confident that the WGLC reviews 
will go well.

> If we need more complete reviews, we could split the work if there's 

More and better reviews are always a good thing ;-)

Tobias

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

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:53:28 +0300

Hi,

in particular, please provide input on whether 4423-bis, which does not
have normative language, should be (eventually) published as a PS or an
Informational RFC.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Andrei Gurtov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:10:15 +0300

Hi,

My group has interest in these documents and can provide reviews if
needed.

Andrei

On 13.9.2012 11:11, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I would like to start the WGLCs on the following two drafts. These
> WGLCs will end on September 30th.
> 
> In addition to technical comments, please also let the list know
> whether you still care about these specifications. Given the low
> level of energy in the WG, one of the issues the IESG will evaluate
> will be whether there is still enough interest behind all these bis
> documents.
> 
> Gonzalo HIP WG co-chair 
> _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing
> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
>

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:51:37 +0300

Hi,

from the viewpoint of research, the different aspects of HIP seems to be 
covered quite well and the architecture has been adopted as a basis for 
a number of other research-oriented protocols. The research group is 
closing, so I don't think there will be many new variants (like the DEX 
and RFID-version of HIP) of the architecture. From the viewpoint of 
engineering, we have currently three well-known implementations (in 
addition to some early approaches and few java-based implementations) 
that we have successfully inteoperated earlier.

Combining the three aspects, I'd lean slightly towards Proposed Standard 
but I guess the issue is subtle as RFC4423 does not have any normative 
language.

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:00:45 +0300

Hi Andrei

if you can provide reviews, now it would be the perfect time to do it
given that we have two of our drafts under WGLC and will be WGLCing
more drafts in the near future.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

On 19/09/2012 9:10 AM, Andrei Gurtov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> My group has interest in these documents and can provide reviews
> if needed.
> 
> Andrei
> 
>> I would like to start the WGLCs on the following two drafts.
>> These WGLCs will end on September 30th.
> 
>> level of energy in the WG, one of the issues the IESG will
>> evaluate will be whether there is still enough interest behind
>> all these bis documents.
> 
>> list [email-masked]

---

From: René Hummen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:12:04 +0200

Hi,

> Please, send your comments to this mailing list.

I'll have a look at the documents during this weekend.

--
Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student
Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems
RWTH Aachen University, Germany
tel: +49 241 80 21429
web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/