Subject: [hiprg] draft-ahrenholz-hiprg-dht-05

From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:10:06 -0700

The DHT draft has been updated to draft-ahrenholz-hiprg-dht-05. Here are
the changes:
- Reordered Sections 3.2 and 3.1, since the HIT lookup normally occurs
  before the address lookup.
- Added text about why two separate lookups are defined.
- Added text pertaining to the OpenDHT service retiring.

Even though the OpenDHT service has retired on PlanetLab, we can still
use the same interface with OpenLookup
(http://code.google.com/p/openlookup/) for experimentation.

-Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 11:12 AM
To: Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ahrenholz-hiprg-dht-05 

A new version of I-D, draft-ahrenholz-hiprg-dht-05.txt has been
successfuly submitted by Jeff Ahrenholz and posted to the IETF
repository.

Filename:	 draft-ahrenholz-hiprg-dht
Revision:	 05
Title:		 HIP DHT Interface
Creation_date:	 2009-09-09
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 25

Abstract:
This document specifies a common interface for using HIP with a
Distributed Hash Table service to provide an unmanaged name-to-HIT
lookup service and a HIT-to-address lookup service.

The IETF Secretariat.

---

From: Miika Komu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:52:19 +0300

Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M wrote:

Hi,

> - Added text pertaining to the OpenDHT service retiring.

good. Why doesn't this document yet have individual label instead of the 
official research group label? Maybe I have forgotten the reason.

> (http://code.google.com/p/openlookup/) for experimentation.

We are using it as well in HIIT/TKK.

There are now two implementations of the same DHT interface. Jeff, 
should we try interoperability to take this to the next level?

Are the P2P-SIP folks around there happy with the current DHT 
specification?

---

From: "Ahrenholz, Jeffrey M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:53:33 -0700

> official research group label? Maybe I have forgotten the reason.

The first version had the name draft-irtf-hip-dht-00 (see
https://listserv.cybertrust.com/pipermail/hipsec-rg/2005-July/000190.htm
l) but at the time was not a research group item but an individual
submission, so it was renamed. The only official RG draft is the
experiment report. If there is interest I am willing to change this
draft's designation.

> should we try interoperability to take this to the next level?

Yes we should try interoperability at some point. We need to update the
OpenHIP software to support this latest draft.

-Jeff