[Hipsec-rg] discussion of draft-lee-hip-object-01

Dear All,

As I already presented at Minneapolis meeting, there are recent trends in
order to specify the object-to-object communications in relevant
standardization bodies for future challenging work. Regarding this, although
we have alternative solutions, I believe that to extend the current HIP for
supporting all of objects is right direction.

Currently the basic concept and several considerations, etc are already
specified in this document. However, for more technical details, I expect
many experts to actively participate in the drafting work after adopting as
one of RG items.

Gyu Myoung Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com
[mailto:hipsec-rg-bounces at listserv.cybertrust.com] On Behalf Of Miika Komu
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:17 PM
To: hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
Subject: Re: [Hipsec-rg] discussion of draft-lee-hip-object-01

Henderson, Thomas R wrote:

Hi,

I would be in favor of adding the document as an RG item although more 
work is needed as indicated by the meeting notes.

> All,
> In Minneapolis, we also discussed, at length, the Object-to-Object
> communications draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-hip-object-01
> 
> The authors are likewise asking the RG for feedback and for whether the
> RG would like to adopt this as a work item.
> 
> The discussion at the meeting is summarized in the meeting minutes:
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/pipermail/hipsec-rg/2008-December/000538
> .html
> 
> To summarize the meeting discussion, several people expressed interest
> in the basic concept proposed, which is to generalize HIP to allow other
> objects (besides internet stacks) to be named, although there was some
> debate as to whether the draft proposes the right mechanisms for this.
> However, there were also a few comments that the use cases are not well
> defined, such that some people had trouble understanding exactly what is
> being proposed and why. 
> 
> Again, please provide feedback on the draft and on whether you think the
> RG should actively work this item.
> 
> - Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec-rg mailing list
> Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg

_______________________________________________
Hipsec-rg mailing list
Hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
https://listserv.cybertrust.com/mailman/listinfo/hipsec-rg