Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process

Varjonen Samu <> Wed, 02 December 2009 09:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF46028C17D for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:45:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s93hR6HiGG4L; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:45:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CF2A28C17B; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 01:44:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E26F25ED20; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:44:51 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:44:50 +0200
From: Varjonen Samu <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Henderson, Thomas R" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identity Protocol \(HIP\) Research Group" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0000


I would change the point 13 in the list to HIP EAP since SRP has patent 


Henderson, Thomas R wrote:
> This note proposes a HIP RG process for advancing documents to draft-irtf-hip status.  Andrei and I have discussed formulating such a process for the past month or two, and have also raised the issue for discussion within the Internet Research Steering Group (IRSG).  Below is a policy that seems appropriate for our research group.
> The purpose of advancing an independent submission to draft-irtf-hip status is to reflect that the HIP research group desires to work towards publishing the document as an IRTF-track RFC (  It may also be the case that the document is later transferred to the HIP working group in the IETF if the HIP working group wants to adopt it.
> The criteria for advancing an individual submission are:
> 1) the draft represents the consensus of the HIP research group, or even if the draft is not a consensus position, the HIP research group reached consensus that it should be published as a product of the RG
> 2) the document either already conforms to the guidelines posted at, or there is a commitment from the authors to bring the draft into alignment
> 3) technical reviewers (non-authors) are identified
> All drafts presented or posted for discussion on the HIP RG mailing list will be tracked on the wiki.  Anyone may propose (on the mailing list) a draft to be advanced to research group status, at which time the chairs will ask on the mailing list whether there is support. There must be some level of positive acknowledgment by non-authors to help review and improve the document to take this action.  If the chairs believe that the criteria are met, the draft can be advanced to research group status.  Authors may be asked to resolve comments or concerns and come back to the list with a revised draft at a later time.
> Once the document reaches IRSG state, a document shepherd will be appointed (typically one of the RG chairs):
> The document shepherd will work with the authors to advance the document to the state at which it is ready for IRSG review:
> While the RG will not officially have a "document shepherd" during the RG preparation stage, the technical reviewers reviewing this draft for the RG can look to the criteria in the above process in guiding their comments.
> Not all HIP RG drafts will advance to IRSG review; some may migrate to the HIP WG, while some may never reach readiness for either state.  To keep things moving along, draft status will be reviewed at the beginning of each research group meeting.  Open issues may be tracked on the wiki or in an issue tracker.  If a draft languishes (no progress on open issues) after being identified as a research group draft, it may be taken off the list of research group drafts at a future date.
> Below is a list of the drafts that have been discussed during the past year (aside from those that have been introduced to the RG for informational purposes such as RANGI and shim6 API) that we will add to the tracker.
> 1) Object naming with HIP
> 2) HIP for RF-ID
> 3) HIP and the IoT
> 4) HIP and user authentication
> 5) HI revocation
> 6) Hierarchical HI
> 7) HIT2IP
> 8) DNS Locators
> 9) HIP DHT interface
> 10) HIP services
> 11) HIP middleboxes
> 12) HIP SAVA
> 13) HIP SRP
> 14) Mobile router
> 15) HIP Proxy (Melen, Ylitalo, Salmela)
> 16) HIP proxies (Zhang, Xu, Yao)
> 17) ECC HIP
> Of the above, we believe that the topics of HIP for Internet of Things, HI revocation, HIP
> DHT interface, and proxies each probably meet the criteria for level of interest, although
> in two cases (IoT and proxies) there are multiple contributions and we should try to chart
> out a process to end up with RG-level drafts.   It may be that others are ready to move
> forward at this time; please let us know your thoughts.
> Please send your comments on the proposed process to the list, or let us know if we are missing any drafts above.
> - Tom and Andrei
> _______________________________________________
> hiprg mailing list