Subject: [Hipsec] New WG items based on our new charter

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:29:37 +0300

Hi,

as you know, our new charter has just been approved:

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/hip-charter.html

Now we need to finish our old chartered items and start working on our
new ones. Below you have the list of all (old and new) chartered items
with their current status. We need a WG draft for each of our chartered
items.

For some of them we already have individual submissions that could
become WG items. Please, let us know whether you support the given
individual submission to become the official draft for that chartered
item or if you want us to consider additional drafts.

For other chartered items, we still do not even have a related
individual submission (although we know of people working of those
issues). We encourage those people to submit a draft on those topics for
the WG's consideration.

> The following are charter items for the working group:
> 
> o Specify how legacy (i.e., HIP unaware) applications can be made to 
> work with HIP.

The authors of the official draft are working on addressing the
discusses received:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-applications-04.txt

> o Specify a solution for HIP to traverse legacy (i.e., HIP unaware) 
> NATs. This solution will be based on existing NAT traversal
> mechanisms such as ICE (Interactive Connectivity Establishment).

We have a design team working on this. They are working with the MMUSIC
folks in order to reuse their definitions of the ICE procedures.

> o Specify a native HIP socket API.

We have an official draft:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-native-api-04.txt

Some time ago, we decided to wait for the NAT traversal and HIP-based
overlays work to be more mature before publishing this draft. This way,
the API defined by the draft will have better chances to be future proof.

> o Specify a framework to build HIP-based overlays. This framework
> will describe how HIP can perform some of the tasks needed to build
> an overlay and how technologies developed somewhere else (e.g., a
> peer protocol developed in the P2PSIP WG) can complement HIP by
> performing the tasks HIP was not designed to perform.

We have the following individual submission:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-hip-bone-01.txt

Would people support this draft to become a WG item?

> o Specify how to generate ORCHIDs from other node identifiers 
> including both cryptographic ones (leading to cryptographic 
> delegation) and non-cryptographic ones (e.g., identifiers defined by
> a peer protocol).

We still do not have any individual submission for this chartered item.

> o Specify how to carry certificates in the base exchange. This was 
> removed from the base HIP spec so that the mechanism is specified in
> a stand-alone spec.

We have the following individual submission:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-varjonen-hip-cert-00.txt

Would people support this draft to become a WG item?

> o Specify how to carry upper-layer data over specified HIP packets.
> These include some of the existing HIP packets and possibly new HIP
> packets (e.g., a HIP packet that occurs outside a HIP base exchange).
> 
We still do not have any individual submission for this chartered item.

Thanks,

Gonzalo
HIP co-chair
_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:41:18 +0300

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

Hi,

> Would people support this draft to become a WG item?

Yes.

> Would people support this draft to become a WG item?

Yes.

---

From: Sheng Jiang <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:11:17 +0800

>>> o Specify a framework to build HIP-based overlays. This 
>>framework will 
>>> describe how HIP can perform some of the tasks needed to build an 
>>> overlay and how technologies developed somewhere else (e.g., a peer 
>>> protocol developed in the P2PSIP WG) can complement HIP by 
>>performing 
>>> the tasks HIP was not designed to perform.
>>

Yes, I support this draft.

>>> removed from the base HIP spec so that the mechanism is 
>>specified in a 
>>> stand-alone spec.
>>

Yes, I support this draft.

>>We still do not have any individual submission for this 

I am interested to work on this. If anybody else is interested too, we can team up
for it. If this work has already taken by somebody and close to finish, please let
me know too.

Sheng JIANG, Ph.D.

IP Research Department, Networking Research Department, Network Product Line, Huawei
Technologies Co. Ltd.

---

From: Joakim Koskela <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:43:20 +0300

> Would people support this draft to become a WG item?

Seems very useful, yes.

br ,j

---

From: Ari Keranen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:25:20 +0300

Hi,

Yes.

Cheers,
Ari

---

From: Alan Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:08:50 -0500

> Would people support this draft to become a WG item?

Yes, I support this draft.  We also need to begin work on some of the 
HIP extensions for multi-hop overlay routing which are mentioned in this 
draft, and discussed in more detail in 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-matthews-p2psip-hip-hop-00.  I'm 
looking forward to contributing to this work.

Thanks,
Alan

---

From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:59:00 -0700

Gonzalo (and HIP WG),
 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hip-applications-04.txt

FYI, we received notification last Friday that this document has been
approved for publication as an RFC.

- Tom