[Hipsec-rg] future work on naming objects in HIP

[rgm at htt-consult.com (Robert Moskowitz)]

Gyu Myoung Lee wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> As we have discussed several times on object related work, it seems that
> most of experts have some interesting points but we still have technically
> alternative solutions. Thus, it will be more productive way to officially
> work together on this topic as a RG item  
>   

Passover starts tonight.

I have a marker down to get work with you on this project. I will be 
rather busy with Passover and my Son's wedding through Apr 21. I will 
have a bit of catch up at that time, but I WILL help here.

Just want to say that when I envisioned HIP, I did not limit it to a 
single identity to a stack. This was a rather arbitrary constraint to 
help others understand what HIP could do. Any object can have a HIP 
identity, or a proxied identity.

But there is much to do still today before the holiday starts.

> First of all, in order to initiate this work as a RG item, I believe that we
> sincerely need to work on a broadly scoped high-level informational
> document. In addition, we also need to develop documents on detailed
> solution spaces simultaneously.
>
> In this case, hip-object document will be a candidate for high level
> informational document which contains basic concept, various technical
> options and use cases, etc. I can take the responsibility for developing
> this document and also would like to invite several experts for valuable
> comments and inputs.
>
> Look forward to your reply.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Gyu Myoung Lee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henderson, Thomas R [mailto:thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:25 PM
> To: hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
> Cc: Gyu Myoung Lee; Samu Varjonen; Pascal.Urien at enst.fr; Robert Moskowitz;
> Andrei Gurtov
> Subject: future work on naming objects in HIP
>
>
> Hi all,
> Gyu Myoung Lee has requested the research group to consider whether to
> adopt the HIP extensions for object to object communications as a RG
> draft:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-hip-object-02
>
> This draft has been presented twice at the RG meeting.  Pascal Urien
> also has presented work on HIP and RFID tags:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-urien-hip-tag-01
>
> At the last meeting, after the presentation of object to object
> communications, there were two comments at the mike:
> - Robert Moskowitz commented that objects could be supported without
> modifying HIP by treating objects as services
> - Pascal Urien commented that privacy issues need to be considered in
> any such solution
>
> As a RG, we have a lot of latitude in deciding on what to work on and
> how to work on it, especially since this work area is not within the
> charter of the HIP working group.  So, I see a couple of options, should
> the group decide to work on this topic:
>
> - we could pick up one or both of the existing drafts above, or pieces
> of them, and work on them as RG documents, with the intention of putting
> any such drafts through the IRTF document stream process:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rfcs-03
>
> - we could work on a more broadly scoped informational document
> describing various options and tradeoffs of linking HIP identifiers with
> other identifiers or other protocols that convey different notions of
> identity.  For instance, Samu Varjonen's draft on how HIP and SRP may be
> combined could be seen as another example of this type of extension:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-varjonen-hip-srp-00
>
> Or, if there isn't a group of people who indicate interest in working on
> such RG documents, the authors can continue to publish them as
> individual submissions.
>
> So, at this point, I'd like to invite discussions about what the RG
> would like to collectively do in this space, as well as invite any
> technical discussion that may be needed for people to decide on this
> point.
>
> - Tom
>
>
>