Subject: [Hipsec] API draft

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:10:08 +0300

Folks,

as you know, we are chartered to describe a native API for HIP. The 
current draft is the following:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-native-api-02.txt

The current title of this draft is "Native Application Programming 
Interfaces for SHIM APIs". We have discussed the fact that this title is 
very general and covers more than HIP with our ADs. We have concluded 
that the API we describe in the HIP WG should focus on HIP. It is OK to 
align it as much as possible with other protocols such as shim6, but the 
draft should include a paragraph along the following lines with respect 
to its scope:

"Note that the API specified in this document is specific to HIP. 
However, this API has been designed keeping generality in mind as much 
as possible so as not to preclude its use with other protocols. The use 
of this API with other protocols is, nevertheless, for further study."

The title of the draft should, of course, also reflect its limited 
scope: Native Application Programming Interfaces for HIP

Cheers,

Gonzalo

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

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:20:03 +0200 (EET)

On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

Hi,

> Folks,
>
> as you know, we are chartered to describe a native API for HIP. The current 
> draft is the following:
>
> The current title of this draft is "Native Application Programming Interfaces 
> for SHIM APIs". We have discussed the fact that this title is very general 
> and covers more than HIP with our ADs. We have concluded that the API we 
> describe in the HIP WG should focus on HIP. It is OK to align it as much as 
> possible with other protocols such as shim6, but the draft should include a 
> paragraph along the following lines with respect to its scope:
>
> "Note that the API specified in this document is specific to HIP. However, 
> this API has been designed keeping generality in mind as much as possible so 
> as not to preclude its use with other protocols. The use of this API with 
> other protocols is, nevertheless, for further study."
>
> The title of the draft should, of course, also reflect its limited scope: 
> Native Application Programming Interfaces for HIP

the feedback for the draft is here:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg02250.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg02230.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/current/msg02224.html

I believe that I have addressed all of the comments in the next preversion 
of the draft:

http://www.iki.fi/miika/docs/draft-ietf-hip-native-api-03-pre3.txt

A quick summary of the changes:

* The locator was removed from the HIT data structure
* Replaced SHIM generalization with just "HIP"
* Dependencies to SHIM6 removed and/or referenced better now
* AI_PASSIVE clafications; added AI_PASSIVE_PUB and AI_PASSIVE_ANON 
* Added HIP_IS_IPV6_ADDR_ANON_HIT macro
* Comments on hostname mapping to multiple HITs
* Comments on HIT mapping to multiple locators
* Rewording and hopefully better explanations

Thanks for the reviewers and looking forward for further comments.

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

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:44:21 +0200

Hi Miika,

thanks for putting this together.

It would be great if the original reviewers of this draft could have a 
look at this new revision and let the mailing list know whether or not 
their comments have been properly addressed.

Regarding my comments below, note that you have rephrased the text I 
suggested and have introduced a few language problems when doing it.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

Miika Komu wrote:
>> Interfaces for SHIM APIs". We have discussed the fact that this title 
>> is very general and covers more than HIP with our ADs. We have 
>> concluded that the API we describe in the HIP WG should focus on HIP. 
>> It is OK to align it as much as possible with other protocols such as 
>> shim6, but the draft should include a paragraph along the following 
>> lines with respect to its scope:
>>
>> as possible so as not to preclude its use with other protocols. The 
>> use of this API with other protocols is, nevertheless, for further 
>> study."
>>
> I believe that I have addressed all of the comments in the next 
> preversion of the draft:
> 
> * AI_PASSIVE clafications; added AI_PASSIVE_PUB and AI_PASSIVE_ANON * 
> Added HIP_IS_IPV6_ADDR_ANON_HIT macro