Subject: Re: [Drip] [Internet]Re: draft-ietf-drip-arch-14 Sec 4 changes

From: "shuaiizhao(Shuai Zhao)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 23:43:53 +0000

I am confused why we have this conversation. My understandings:
- DRIP architecture has been focusing on HHIT as DRIP identifier, SINCE THE beginning of DRIP.
- The solution draft we currently have is also HHIT based.

Questions to Stu and Chairs, since I don’t see any other comments related to this.. : 
- If HHIT is currently THE Solution, what we are trying to avoid?  It is an informational draft after all, none of the information are considered normative, right? I just don’t see any issues even we claim HHIT is the DRIP identifier
- Unless we have other candidate to DRIP Identifier, if that is the case, the opponent shall stand up and speak.  

Best,
Shuai

On 7/15/21, 3:11 AM, "Tm-rid on behalf of [email-masked]" <[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi Robert,

    This is a fair observation, but the point about that wording was to make sure the document can survive HHIT. Of course, HHIT is the current drip solution. You can even claim that (and suggest to do it) in the RID draft. 

    Please not that this is an arch document, not a solution design document after all.

    Thank you. 

    Cheers,
    Med

    > -----Message d'origine-----
    > De : Tm-rid [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Robert
    > Moskowitz
    > Envoyé : mercredi 14 juillet 2021 22:45
    > À : [email-masked]
    > Objet : [Drip] draft-ietf-drip-arch-14 Sec 4 changes
    > 
    > I am opposed to labeling HHITs as "the Primary DRIP Entity
    > Identifier"
    > 
    > We have been at this for 2 years now.  There have been no other
    > proposals other than HHITs.  I am not aware of any other wg to take
    > this position on the possibility of future alternatives.
    > 
    > At this point HHITs **ARE** the DRIP Entity Identifier.
    > 
    > If something else comes along, then we can look at the something
    > else and deal with it.
    > 
    > I feel very strongly that this is a poor position to take.  This is
    > not said because I have a strong vested interest in use of HHITs. It
    > is because I have not seen this sort of action before in any
    > workgroup. And I don't mean workgroups looking for the best password
    > authenticated key exchange protocol or similar efforts. Those
    > intrinsically have multiple proposals.  Does the MLS architecture
    > document make a similar statement about MLSPROTO?
    > 
    > Robert Moskowitz
    > 
    > --
    > Tm-rid mailing list
    > [email-masked]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
    pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
    a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
    Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

    This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
    they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
    If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
    As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
    Thank you.

    -- 
    Tm-rid mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tm-rid