[Hipsec-rg] comments on draft-heer-hip-middle-auth-01

[thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com (Henderson, Thomas R)]

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Heer [mailto:heer at cs.rwth-aachen.de] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 7:15 AM
> To: hipsec-rg at honor.trusecure.com
> Cc: Henderson, Thomas R
> Subject: Re: [Hipsec-rg] comments on draft-heer-hip-middle-auth-01
> 
> Hello Thomas,
> 
> Thanks for raising the discussion again. I am of course willing to  
> continue to work on the draft in any way. However, I would prefer to  
> continue in close collaboration with the RG or the WG as their input  
> means a lot to me.
> 
> I guess the question whether to pursue the draft is essentially the  
> question if HIP should be used for path-coupled signaling to  
> middleboxes (i.e., expect that at some point in time there will be  
> middleboxes that inspect HIP payload and use the HI namespace).  
> Therefore, I would be interested if the RG thinks that using the HI  
> namespace by on-path HIP-aware nodes is useful/desired/necessary or  
> not. If so, is the approach that the draft takes a good one 
> or should  
> we reconsider?
> 
> Input from the list is very appreciated.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Tobias
> 

Tobias,

It seems like the consensus of the opinions expressed is to support this
draft and to move this forward either in the WG or RG.  I think it is
reasonable to ask the WG at this point whether or not they would like to
take ownership;  note that the HIP NAT traversal draft in the WG has
been referencing this document.  If not, we can reconsider its future in
the RG.

I will summarize things for the WG and we can see how the discussion
goes.

- Tom