From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Mon Jan 15 04:29:26 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6O9R-0002l8-Tj; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:29:13 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6O9Q-0002kx-Dd for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:29:12 -0500 Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1] helo=mail.cs.helsinki.fi) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6O9L-00057z-Un for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:29:12 -0500 Received: from [217.152.227.130] (hipserver.infrahip.net [217.152.227.130]) (AUTH: PLAIN gurtov, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by mail.cs.helsinki.fi with esmtp; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:29:02 +0200 id 000AFF1D.45AB495E.0000020D Message-ID: <45AB494F.8040907@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:28:47 +0200 From: Andrei Gurtov User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061219) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: HIP Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Progressing our new WG items References: <458A962A.10103@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <458A962A.10103@ericsson.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 825e642946eda55cd9bc654a36dab8c2 Cc: X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0624737085==" Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. --===============0624737085== Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="=_courier-525-1168853342-0001-2" This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages. --=_courier-525-1168853342-0001-2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've reviewed API and NAT drafts and gave some feedback directly to Miika. My general impression was that the drafts need a lot of improvement in readability. My suggestion is to assign an editor to both drafts, especially if we aim to get them to IESG in March as in the current charter. Perhaps a native speaker (Tom?) would be best although I'm also willing to volunteer. Andrei Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Folks, > > there have been almost no discussions on the list during the last > months. We need to progress our new WG items, which were submitted as > official HIP drafts a while ago. We would like to encourage > discussions on those drafts. > > Also, we need to decide whether or not we need to meet face-to-face in > Prague. Comments are welcome. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec -- Andrei Gurtov gurtov@hiit.fi http://www.hiit.fi/andrei.gurtov Adjunct Professor, TKK PhD, Senior Research Scientist Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT) High Tech Center, Helsinki, Finland --=_courier-525-1168853342-0001-2 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIJozCC AywwggKVoAMCAQICEHQmGggpM22E9ZYAhjm+LacwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwYjELMAkGA1UE BhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMT I1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA2MDMyMjE4MTU1MVoX DTA3MDMyMjE4MTU1MVowfzEPMA0GA1UEBBMGR3VydG92MQ8wDQYDVQQqEwZBbmRyZWkxFjAU BgNVBAMTDUFuZHJlaSBHdXJ0b3YxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFWd1cnRvdkBjcy5oZWxzaW5r aS5maTEdMBsGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYOZ3VydG92QGhpaXQuZmkwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUA A4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDG8ApEd2xo6tY7eJLBpxUkYp4w0Gk94HlTGd4axDvJUtasnb5oCmn2 Kor1kmYMf+j9neL8hOPO5CUxpsM9gW2a05djUwiRv6clH4WNSSOyZ5JEv6h7uqwiYA4ILZ2e jnJjZrHOIVXX7Dy/3TCitmmTI9/I/wtSqbbkXyYxHBcyA9JT8wyxI7kpTwg10aSaaYDKf7hW 6pvkVVG+7fl8b1kvy8LC4jk0xfAt8OVXuI9Vdg0nH1hos2bTXHNA47ONbDrFvSWQGSCZnqYK OEcg8tmS7TZBTmhEHgkzZDKr4ZqAUPyYEvj0i+x345T0OjhkjW4EZlknyAIdRZhIE4avbJvZ AgMBAAGjQjBAMDAGA1UdEQQpMCeBFWd1cnRvdkBjcy5oZWxzaW5raS5maYEOZ3VydG92QGhp aXQuZmkwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCKrp4lDsaSRnlawg0/7+na HN/8y9bGorkWzCp2us64WEpgM+b83jwGkcjiR59N6gOAHq0olbpoXp1x5EEoW5aMIRycO49G uXesyibDnFzHrhJAlSmyQ/biAmaT1UuGw97wTVurxpTnO7LOKcjzqLS/9d5pRjUoYwGJnt0y bnvkpTCCAywwggKVoAMCAQICEHQmGggpM22E9ZYAhjm+LacwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAwYjEL MAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAq BgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA2MDMyMjE4 MTU1MVoXDTA3MDMyMjE4MTU1MVowfzEPMA0GA1UEBBMGR3VydG92MQ8wDQYDVQQqEwZBbmRy ZWkxFjAUBgNVBAMTDUFuZHJlaSBHdXJ0b3YxJDAiBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWFWd1cnRvdkBjcy5o ZWxzaW5raS5maTEdMBsGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYOZ3VydG92QGhpaXQuZmkwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDG8ApEd2xo6tY7eJLBpxUkYp4w0Gk94HlTGd4axDvJUtas nb5oCmn2Kor1kmYMf+j9neL8hOPO5CUxpsM9gW2a05djUwiRv6clH4WNSSOyZ5JEv6h7uqwi YA4ILZ2ejnJjZrHOIVXX7Dy/3TCitmmTI9/I/wtSqbbkXyYxHBcyA9JT8wyxI7kpTwg10aSa aYDKf7hW6pvkVVG+7fl8b1kvy8LC4jk0xfAt8OVXuI9Vdg0nH1hos2bTXHNA47ONbDrFvSWQ GSCZnqYKOEcg8tmS7TZBTmhEHgkzZDKr4ZqAUPyYEvj0i+x345T0OjhkjW4EZlknyAIdRZhI E4avbJvZAgMBAAGjQjBAMDAGA1UdEQQpMCeBFWd1cnRvdkBjcy5oZWxzaW5raS5maYEOZ3Vy dG92QGhpaXQuZmkwDAYDVR0TAQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCKrp4lDsaSRnla wg0/7+naHN/8y9bGorkWzCp2us64WEpgM+b83jwGkcjiR59N6gOAHq0olbpoXp1x5EEoW5aM IRycO49GuXesyibDnFzHrhJAlSmyQ/biAmaT1UuGw97wTVurxpTnO7LOKcjzqLS/9d5pRjUo YwGJnt0ybnvkpTCCAz8wggKooAMCAQICAQ0wDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgdExCzAJBgNVBAYT AlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAcTCUNhcGUgVG93bjEaMBgGA1UE ChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0NlcnRpZmljYXRpb24gU2VydmljZXMg RGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBDQTErMCkGCSqG SIb3DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1haWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAeFw0wMzA3MTcwMDAwMDBa Fw0xMzA3MTYyMzU5NTlaMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3Vs dGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNz dWluZyBDQTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAxKY8VXNV+065yplaHmjAdQRw nd/p/6Me7L3N9VvyGna9fww6YfK/Uc4B1OVQCjDXAmNaLIkVcI7dyfArhVqqP3FWy688Cwfn 8R+RNiQqE88r1fOCdz0Dviv+uxg+B79AgAJk16emu59l0cUqVIUPSAR/p7bRPGEEQB5kGXJg t/sCAwEAAaOBlDCBkTASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMEMGA1UdHwQ8MDowOKA2oDSGMmh0 dHA6Ly9jcmwudGhhd3RlLmNvbS9UaGF3dGVQZXJzb25hbEZyZWVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMAsGA1Ud DwQEAwIBBjApBgNVHREEIjAgpB4wHDEaMBgGA1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMi0xMzgwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADgYEASIzRUIPqCy7MDaNmrGcPf6+svsIXoUOWlJ1/TCG4+DYfqi2fNi/A 9BxQIJNwPP2t4WFiw9k6GX6EsZkbAMUaC4J0niVQlGLH2ydxVyWN3amcOY6MIE9lX5Xa9/eH 1sYITq726jTlEBpbNU1341YheILcIRk13iSx0x1G/11fZU8xggNkMIIDYAIBATB2MGIxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYD VQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQdCYaCCkzbYT1lgCG Ob4tpzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoIIBwzAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwGCSqGSIb3 DQEJBTEPFw0wNzAxMTUwOTI4NDdaMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBQQ+C28BjU4AmneGrAS8OwM twUAzDBSBgkqhkiG9w0BCQ8xRTBDMAoGCCqGSIb3DQMHMA4GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgIAgDANBggq hkiG9w0DAgIBQDAHBgUrDgMCBzANBggqhkiG9w0DAgIBKDCBhQYJKwYBBAGCNxAEMXgwdjBi MQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEs MCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECEHQmGggpM22E 9ZYAhjm+LacwgYcGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMXigdjBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMc VGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFs IEZyZWVtYWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0ECEHQmGggpM22E9ZYAhjm+LacwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAE ggEAHeLTT6O1JYwdcFq4YCUfXc13ns0H8UZVqIAIAr21wXcGLhStOS1A8bAUyHzkacANBpdA o4PBgjkY/rB+pWlYwP6T8862MK8ItV4ZBT7cjw5n/ERfwerUqEsGblU+R317mQJfzi6XJnzO I6fMqlLNQMLDpGanTaOyhoFXHRBx+8xC4pX8IWtb2oh6OLvi/7Q1VI3H+6gfvDUbhnobH/Ae 0s3/VBtT0e87kfd3U6AU7sA2ltfQWbhuURTqPEHxqRgGL7l+wyQbQdNfe4B7FXrS6dBc9CML idMUvB3xeNo1vY3wkrt1OMOWc8Mg9LO2Vdj7THAbVV/a0uYkaucvQQ15kQAAAAAAAA== --=_courier-525-1168853342-0001-2-- --===============0624737085== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec --===============0624737085==-- From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Mon Jan 15 04:32:05 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6OCD-0003ki-Sw; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:32:05 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6OCC-0003kd-6x for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:32:04 -0500 Received: from goliath.siemens.de ([192.35.17.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6OC9-0005b0-N9 for hipsec@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:32:04 -0500 Received: from mail1.siemens.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by goliath.siemens.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l0F9VxAt023523; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:31:59 +0100 Received: from mchp771a.ww002.siemens.net (mchp771a.ww002.siemens.net [139.25.131.189]) by mail1.siemens.de (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l0F9VxWY020220; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:31:59 +0100 Received: from MCHP7R6A.ww002.siemens.net ([139.25.131.164]) by mchp771a.ww002.siemens.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:31:59 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: AW: [Hipsec] Progressing our new WG items Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:31:58 +0100 Message-ID: <6F0CB04509C11D46A54232E852E390AC025C27C4@MCHP7R6A.ww002.siemens.net> In-Reply-To: <45AB494F.8040907@cs.helsinki.fi> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Hipsec] Progressing our new WG items Thread-Index: Acc4h8maxtsz6kqPSoer3MlKCt52NgAACUQg From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" To: "Andrei Gurtov" , "HIP" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jan 2007 09:31:59.0479 (UTC) FILETIME=[01796870:01C73888] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Cc: X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Hi Andrei,=20 I also read through the draft and I noticed that there improvement = beyond the previous HIP PATH draft is almost non-existent.=20 Ciao Hannes =20 > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Andrei Gurtov [mailto:gurtov@cs.helsinki.fi]=20 > Gesendet: Montag, 15. Januar 2007 10:29 > An: HIP > Betreff: Re: [Hipsec] Progressing our new WG items >=20 >=20 > I've reviewed API and NAT drafts and gave some feedback directly to > Miika. My general impression was that the drafts need a lot of > improvement in readability. My suggestion is to assign an=20 > editor to both > drafts, especially if we aim to get them to IESG in March as in the > current charter. Perhaps a native speaker (Tom?) would be=20 > best although > I'm also willing to volunteer. >=20 > Andrei >=20 > Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > > Folks, > > > > there have been almost no discussions on the list during the last > > months. We need to progress our new WG items, which were=20 > submitted as > > official HIP drafts a while ago. We would like to encourage > > discussions on those drafts. > > > > Also, we need to decide whether or not we need to meet=20 > face-to-face in > > Prague. Comments are welcome. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Gonzalo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Hipsec mailing list > > Hipsec@lists.ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Andrei Gurtov gurtov@hiit.fi http://www.hiit.fi/andrei.gurtov > Adjunct Professor, TKK > PhD, Senior Research Scientist > Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT) > High Tech Center, Helsinki, Finland >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Tue Jan 16 04:24:20 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6kXu-00061P-7V; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:23:58 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6kXs-00061F-Is for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:23:56 -0500 Received: from twilight.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.40.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6kXn-0007hl-26 for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 04:23:56 -0500 Received: by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix, from userid 60001) id 3247A2D2A; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:23:50 +0200 (EET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-niksula20061027 (2006-10-05) on twilight.cs.hut.fi X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=disabled version=3.1.7-niksula20061027 X-Spam-Niksula: No Received: from kekkonen.cs.hut.fi (kekkonen.cs.hut.fi [130.233.41.50]) by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB002D11; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:23:47 +0200 (EET) Received: from localhost (mkomu@localhost) by kekkonen.cs.hut.fi (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/Submit) with ESMTP id l0G9Njek007828; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:23:45 +0200 (EET) X-Authentication-Warning: kekkonen.cs.hut.fi: mkomu owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:23:42 +0200 (EET) From: Miika Komu X-X-Sender: mkomu@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi To: "Tschofenig, Hannes" Subject: Re: AW: [Hipsec] Progressing our new WG items In-Reply-To: <6F0CB04509C11D46A54232E852E390AC025C27C4@MCHP7R6A.ww002.siemens.net> Message-ID: References: <6F0CB04509C11D46A54232E852E390AC025C27C4@MCHP7R6A.ww002.siemens.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-2110444415-1168938453=:2414" Content-ID: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a8a20a483a84f747e56475e290ee868e Cc: HIP X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---559023410-2110444415-1168938453=:2414 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-1; FORMAT=flowed Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Tschofenig, Hannes wrote: Dear Andrei, as for the NAT draft, there are no major technical issues so I don't thin= k=20 there is need for an extra formal editor. I can make corrections based on= =20 your detailed comments. I am expecting also a review of the draft and we=20 have a grammar service at HUT. The most important issue is the mobility=20 related part in the NAT draft to which I am already prepared to write mor= e=20 detailed text. Dear Hannes, we have put a lot of effort to write the current WG NAT draft from scratc= h=20 and we did not use the RG PATH draft as our a starting point. Hence, the=20 technical solution is different, more detailed and backed up by=20 implementation experience. Looking forward for more detailed comments, Miika. > Hi Andrei, > > I also read through the draft and I noticed that there improvement=20 > beyond the previous HIP PATH draft is almost non-existent. > > Ciao > Hannes > > >> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Andrei Gurtov [mailto:gurtov@cs.helsinki.fi] >> Gesendet: Montag, 15. Januar 2007 10:29 >> An: HIP >> Betreff: Re: [Hipsec] Progressing our new WG items >> >> >> I've reviewed API and NAT drafts and gave some feedback directly to >> Miika. My general impression was that the drafts need a lot of >> improvement in readability. My suggestion is to assign an >> editor to both >> drafts, especially if we aim to get them to IESG in March as in the >> current charter. Perhaps a native speaker (Tom?) would be >> best although >> I'm also willing to volunteer. >> >> Andrei >> >> Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Folks, >>> >>> there have been almost no discussions on the list during the last >>> months. We need to progress our new WG items, which were >> submitted as >>> official HIP drafts a while ago. We would like to encourage >>> discussions on those drafts. >>> >>> Also, we need to decide whether or not we need to meet >> face-to-face in >>> Prague. Comments are welcome. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gonzalo >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Hipsec mailing list >>> Hipsec@lists.ietf.org >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec >> >> >> -- >> Andrei Gurtov gurtov@hiit.fi http://www.hiit.fi/andrei.gurtov >> Adjunct Professor, TKK >> PhD, Senior Research Scientist >> Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT) >> High Tech Center, Helsinki, Finland >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Hipsec mailing list > Hipsec@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec > --=20 Miika Komu http://www.iki.fi/miika/ ---559023410-2110444415-1168938453=:2414 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec ---559023410-2110444415-1168938453=:2414-- From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Fri Jan 19 08:49:06 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H7u72-00041d-7B; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:49:00 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WD9-0004W6-O5; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:35 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WD7-0004VN-ED; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:35 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279B21766B; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:05:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WCc-0001aW-It; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:02 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:02 -0500 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:58 -0500 Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] Last Call: draft-ietf-hip-registration (Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension) to Experimental RFC X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip) to consider the following document: - 'Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension ' as an Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-01-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-registration-02.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13683&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Fri Jan 19 08:49:06 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H7u71-00041T-Rj; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:59 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WC4-000492-JD; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:28 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WC3-0004Rx-8q; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:28 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C5017662; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:03:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WBY-0001Ug-Eg; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:03:56 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:03:56 -0500 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:58 -0500 Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Fri Jan 19 08:49:06 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H7u72-00041d-7B; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:49:00 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WD9-0004W6-O5; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:35 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WD7-0004VN-ED; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:35 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279B21766B; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:05:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WCc-0001aW-It; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:02 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:05:02 -0500 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:58 -0500 Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] Last Call: draft-ietf-hip-registration (Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension) to Experimental RFC X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip) to consider the following document: - 'Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Registration Extension ' as an Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-01-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-registration-02.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13683&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Fri Jan 19 08:49:06 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H7u71-00041T-Rj; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:59 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WC4-000492-JD; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:28 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WC3-0004Rx-8q; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:28 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C5017662; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:03:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WBY-0001Ug-Eg; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:03:56 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:03:56 -0500 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:58 -0500 Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] Last Call: draft-ietf-hip-mm (End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol) to Experimental RFC X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip) to consider the following document: - 'End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol ' as an Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-01-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-mm-04.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12461&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec [Hipsec] Last Call: draft-ietf-hip-mm (End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol) to Experimental RFC X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip) to consider the following document: - 'End-Host Mobility and Multihoming with the Host Identity Protocol ' as an Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-01-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-mm-04.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12461&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Fri Jan 19 08:49:06 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H7u72-00041Y-2H; Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:49:00 -0500 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WCZ-0004Kd-MZ; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:59 -0500 Received: from ns3.neustar.com ([156.154.24.138]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WCZ-0004TC-Dk; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:59 -0500 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by ns3.neustar.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC1A17662; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:04:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1H6WC4-0001Xi-Kb; Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:28 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:04:28 -0500 X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:48:58 -0500 Cc: hipsec@ietf.org Subject: [Hipsec] Last Call: draft-ietf-hip-rvs (Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension) to Experimental RFC X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org The IESG has received a request from the Host Identity Protocol WG (hip) to consider the following document: - 'Host Identity Protocol (HIP) Rendezvous Extension ' as an Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-01-29. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-rvs-05.txt IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12498&rfc_flag=0 _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Tue Jan 30 09:51:54 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBuKV-0001DH-Fr; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:51:27 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBuKU-0001DA-Ee for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:51:26 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es ([163.117.136.122]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HBuKS-0001fv-Gb for hipsec@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:51:26 -0500 Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA210DBF92; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:51:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [163.117.82.232] (unknown [163.117.82.232]) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69689DBFC9; Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:51:22 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <6075605f4a3946c677ab6ae3821beec9@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed To: Thomas R Henderson , HIP From: marcelo bagnulo braun Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:52:20 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a743e34ab8eb08259de9a7307caed594 Cc: Subject: [Hipsec] about draft-ietf-hip-mm-04 X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Hi, I have some comments about this document. Disclaimer: this is a first reading of this version of the draft and has changed a lot since last time i have read it, so i am probably missing some things... Substantial: In multiple parts of the document, it seems that there is an assumption that mulithoming is about having multiple locators simultaneously, and also using them simultaneously (OTOH, in other parts of the document it doesn't seems to be the case, so i am kind of confused...) This is expressed in the following parts of the document. For instance in section 3.3.3. it is stated that: In general, when multiple locators are used for a session, there is the question of using multiple locators for failover only or for load-balancing. Due to the implications of load-balancing on the transport layer that still need to be worked out, this draft assumes that multiple locators are used primarily for failover. An implementation may use ICMP interactions, reachability checks, or other means to detect the failure of a locator. However, in the next section 3.3.4 it is stated that address address31 as well. However, the use of different source and destination addresses typically leads to different paths, with different latencies in the network, and if packets were to arrive via an arbitrary destination IP address (or path) for a given SPI, the reordering due to different latencies may cause some packets to fall outside of the ESP anti-replay window. For this reason, HIP provides and this type of usage seems the one that governs the mechanisms described in the spec. My point (that i expand below) is that it may be an option to consider a simple case for multihoming where the addresses are used sequentially and not for load sharing, and in this case, much of the complexity of dealing with multiple SPIs would be reduced. Then define a more complex multihoming case, where load sharing is considered and in this case you will need the multiple SPI case. more details on this.... In section 3.1 it is stated that: Such host multihoming generally necessitates that a separate ESP SA is maintained for each interface in order to prevent packets that arrive over different paths from falling outside of the ESP replay protection window. i fail to understand this part... could you describe a bit more in detail why would they fall outside the ESP replay protection window (i think it would be useful to include such description in the document in any case) but are you assuming here that multiple addresses will be used simultaneously to exchange packets? I mean, i think that a quite useful reasonable multihoming application scenario is where a node has multiple addresses, but it only uses one of them to exchange traffic as long this one works. If it detects a failure, it moves the communication to an alternative locator pair. This is what is needed for fault tolernace. Other applications, like using multiple locators simultaneously to exchange packets of the same communication seems to go beyond the needs for fault tolernace and would provide other different (not so obviously needed imho) features. (In particular, in shim6 this capability is not currently provided) So summarizing, i think that for fault tolernace provision in multihoming, it is not needed to use multiple locators to exchange data simultaneously. what is needed is to know that there are multiple locators, but to use them sequentially, just as in mobility. In this case, the difference is when you learn the locator set, rather than how you use them. If this is the case, i think that it would be possible to have multihoming with a single SPI without having problems with the replay protection window. I think this is really important, because all this multiple SPI approach seems to present some additional problems that i will describe next Later on in section 3.2.3 it is stated that In multihoming scenarios, it is important that hosts receiving UPDATEs associate them correctly with the destination address used in the packet carrying the UPDATE. Ok, so this means that: In the general case where two multihomed hosts are communicating, consider host A with N locators and host B with M locators, host A will need to send M UPDATe messages (one to each locator of B) containing all its locators in each message and including N different SPI. then Host B will need to send N UPDATE messages to host A containing all its locator and including M different SPIs. so the result is that for exchanging thier locator sets, A and B will need to exchange M+N UPDATE messages and will need to use 2*M*N different SPI values, is this correct? I mean, we need to compare this with the other alternative, which is to use just 2 UPDATE messages to exchange the locator sets and use a pair of SPIs (one in each direction) As i mentioned above, i think this is possible if a single locator pair is used at the time. I suggest that the draft only deals with simple multihoming, but that simple is not the case where one end has 2 locators and the other just one locator, but that simple is defined as the case where the locator pairs are used sequentially, just as in the mobility case, just that it happens the they learn it all together. In this case, i think we can live with a single SPI pair of values (one per direction) and all thiss multiple UPDATE message exchange and multiple SPI is no longer needed, makes sense? So in this approach, peers would need to exchange only a single UPDATE message in each direction to convey alternative locator information. The exchange would be Multi-homed Host Peer Host UPDATE(ESP_INFO, LOCATOR, SEQ, [DIFFIE_HELLMAN]) -----------------------------------> UPDATE(ESP_INFO, SEQ, ACK, [DIFFIE_HELLMAN,] ) <----------------------------------- At this point, both ends know all the available locator pairs, but the reachability test haven't been done yet. However, the reachability test is not actually needed until the peer wants to actually use the packet, so in the case that there are many locator pairs, doing all the reachability test upon the reception of the update message is probably not a good idea. Actually the reachability test can be deltayed until the peer needs to use the locator pair. In addition, this reahcbaility test can be use to actually check the reacbaility of the locator pair when the peer wants to use it. (i mean, making the reachability test upon the reception of the UPDATe message is useful for preventing flooding attacks, but is not so useful for determining whether the locator pair is working, becasue the peer will not use the locator pair inmediatelly) So, i would suggest that the ECHO request/reply packets are used as a basic way to determine if the locator pair is working, and that this verification is only performed when the preferred locator pair stops working (or when the peer wants to start using a new locator pair for whatever reason) At this point the echo request reply can be used to test reachability in order to select a new alternative locator pair that is working. this i think would also be compatible with using a single SPI, since you would only send a limited set of packets through alternative paths, whcih shouldn't affect the replay protection window so much (i am guessing here....) So my suggestion is: define a simple multihomed case for sequentially used locator pairs, where - Use a single SPI pair for all locator pairs - Use a single pair of UPDATE messages - Perform the ECHO request reply only when the new locator pair will be used Semi substantial: In section i it is stated that: Preferred locator. A locator on which a host prefers to receive data. This is strange... i mean the locator where a node receives traffic to doesn't seem to be so relevant as the receiver doesn't even look at the locators in the incoming packet, but just to the SPI to perform the demux. I, mean, as long as the locator has been assigned to the host and the SPI is the correct one, the particular locator doesn't seem to be relevant. OTOH, what it seems to be relevant, is the locator that a peer uses to send traffic. Of corse, a receiver may express to the peer what locator it prefers to receive traffic, but at the end of the day, is the choice of the sender which one to actually use to send the traffic. This is especially true in the multihoming case, where the sender may have multiple valid locators to send traffic to. So, maybe including something from the senders perspective would be good here, like the preferred peer locator and the preferred local locator In section 3.1 it is stated that: Finally, consider the case when a host is multihomed (has more than one globally routable address) and makes these multiple addresses available for use by the upper layer protocols, for fault tolerance. Not sure about the phrasing of this sentence, the addresses are not available for the upper layers, since the multiple address are transparent to the upper layers (this is what all this is about, right?) So i would suggest to rephrase this, saying that the addresses are available for the HIP ayer to be used as alternative locators or soemthing in this line. In section 3.2 it is stated that: However, some implementations may want to experiment with sending LOCATOR parameters also on other packets, such as R1, I2, and NOTIFY. I am not sure that R1 makes much sense... i mean, this is probably part of the initial contact problem i.e. when sending the I1, the initiator needs to know multiple locators in case one has failed. So including them in R1 doesn't seem to help much at that point imho. OTOH, including them in R2, would result in having them already available for that communication. _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Jan 31 06:27:01 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDbL-0004xl-Sv; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:26:07 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDbK-0004xa-VH for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:26:06 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDbE-0003Ww-Cb for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:26:06 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 9C12E21210; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:25:51 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b0ed5bb0000007e1-8d-45c07cbf7a52 Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.121]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 8F265211B1; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:25:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.176]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:25:51 +0100 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:25:51 +0100 Received: from [131.160.36.100] (EH3I2003TGFCPET-131160036100.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.36.100]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id F217A2495; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:25:50 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <45C07CBD.8040801@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:25:49 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2007 11:25:51.0260 (UTC) FILETIME=[902475C0:01C7452A] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 Cc: Pekka Nikander Subject: [Hipsec] WGLC: draft-ietf-hip-applications-00.txt X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Folks, we would like to working group last call the following draft: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-applications-00.txt This WGLC will end on March 1st. This should give people enough time to read the draft and send their comments to the list and the authors. As the first WGLC comment, the draft should have a null IANA considerations section. Cheers, Gonzalo HIP co-chair _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Jan 31 06:31:04 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDg8-0007Ta-J6; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:31:04 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDg7-0007S1-8U for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:31:03 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDg0-0005G8-PM for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:31:03 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 505132120C; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:30:56 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-afed3bb0000007e1-35-45c07df087ea Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 4254F21245; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:30:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:30:55 +0100 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:30:55 +0100 Received: from [131.160.36.100] (EH3I2003TGFCPET-131160036100.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.36.100]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE25D2495; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:30:55 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <45C07DEF.6000404@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:30:55 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2007 11:30:55.0776 (UTC) FILETIME=[45A5EA00:01C7452B] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Cc: Subject: [Hipsec] NAT Traversal and Native HIP API X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Folks, our charter says that we should be WGLCing the NAT traversal and native API drafts as well. However, we believe that they have not yet received enough attention to grant a WGLC at this point. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-native-api-00.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-nat-traversal-00.txt Therefore, we would like to, once more, encourage people to read the drafts and send comments to the list and the authors. We are looking forward to having mailing list discussions on these WG items so that we are able to WGLC them shortly. Thanks, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec From hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Wed Jan 31 06:36:56 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDlo-0001h0-4A; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:36:56 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDlm-0001gt-7c for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:36:54 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se ([193.180.251.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HCDlk-0006z6-TO for hipsec@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:36:54 -0500 Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 2B5C62142C; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:35:18 +0100 (CET) X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-b0ed5bb0000007e1-77-45c07ef6e82a Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.254.122]) by mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 17F9E20113; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:35:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.175]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:35:17 +0100 Received: from mail.lmf.ericsson.se ([131.160.11.50]) by esealmw127.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:35:17 +0100 Received: from [131.160.36.100] (EH3I2003TGFCPET-131160036100.lmf.ericsson.se [131.160.36.100]) by mail.lmf.ericsson.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67D232495; Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:35:17 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <45C07EF5.2080407@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:35:17 +0200 From: Gonzalo Camarillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: HIP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2007 11:35:17.0427 (UTC) FILETIME=[E19AB030:01C7452B] X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: Subject: [Hipsec] Not meeting in Prague X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org Folks, the amount of mailing list discussions around our new WG items does not justify a face-to-face meeting in Prague. Consequently, we have let the area directors know that the HIP WG will not be meeting during the upcoming IETF. However, we would like to stress that having mailing list discussions around those items is essential to conclude our charter, which, as a reminder, currently reads as follows: Jan 2007 WGLC Legacy NAT traversal specification Jan 2007 WGLC Legacy Application Interworking specification Jan 2007 WGLC Native API specification Mar 2007 Legacy NAT traversal specification to the IESG Mar 2007 Legacy Application Interworking specification to the IESG Mar 2007 Native API specification to the IESG Apr 2007 Recharter or close the WG Cheers, Gonzalo _______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec