Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process
"Gyu Myoung Lee" <gmlee@icu.ac.kr> Wed, 02 December 2009 11:32 UTC
Return-Path: <gmlee@icu.ac.kr>
X-Original-To: hiprg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hiprg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81E628C1C8 for <hiprg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:32:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJHYmrv-k-kc for <hiprg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sniper.icu.ac.kr (spamsniper.kaist.ac.kr [143.248.116.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EF628C1BF for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:32:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (snipe 12327 invoked by uid 0); 2 Dec 2009 20:25:40 +0900
Received: from gmlee@icu.ac.kr with Spamsniper 2.96.35 (Processed in 2.589736 secs);
Received: from unknown (HELO gmlee) (gmleexw@157.159.24.62) by unknown with SMTP; 2 Dec 2009 20:25:37 +0900
X-SNIPER-SENDERIP: 157.159.24.62
X-SNIPER-MAILFROM: gmlee@icu.ac.kr
X-SNIPER-RCPTTO: hiprg@irtf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org, pascal.urien@gmail.com, thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com
From: Gyu Myoung Lee <gmlee@icu.ac.kr>
To: 'Pascal Urien' <pascal.urien@gmail.com>, "'Henderson, Thomas R'" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
References: <AAF2CBF9D2573B45A7ED75C4FFD9883F4B98098E41@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <788eb8c40912020102pd1d11cfo1032ce7e582c872f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <788eb8c40912020102pd1d11cfo1032ce7e582c872f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:22:06 +0100
Message-ID: <007101ca7341$b043c3e0$10cb4ba0$@ac.kr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0072_01CA734A.12082BE0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcpzLjGFqbatTay5ShyxNh1V4ZxoswACLWHQ
Content-Language: ko
Cc: hiprg@irtf.org, irtf-chair@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process
X-BeenThere: hiprg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identity Protocol \(HIP\) Research Group" <hiprg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg>, <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/hiprg>
List-Post: <mailto:hiprg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg>, <mailto:hiprg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:32:57 -0000
Dear All We have discussed several times for IoT related issues and many of you have expressed the opinion that this topic is very interesting through HIP RG meetings and mailing list discussion. However, we still have various opinions on scope for this topic which the HIP RG would deal with. In this regards, at the last Hiroshima meeting, the IRTF chair mentioned that to create a new research group on IoT would be one of possible solutions. So, it is very important to determine a right place for discussion on IoT. First of all, we need to decide whether the HIP RG will develop a document on conceptual requirements and architecture for IoT without limiting to HIP. I believe that HIP can be one of candidate solutions in terms of object naming. With specific technical solutions like HIP for RF-ID, we should analyze various cases with consideration of naming and addressing architecture which other groups are developing. Best Regards, Gyu Myoung Lee From: hiprg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:hiprg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Pascal Urien Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:02 AM To: Henderson, Thomas R Cc: hiprg@irtf.org; irtf-chair@irtf.org Subject: Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process Dear all, I support the idea to introduce HIP for Internet Of things as WG item. The draft HIP for RF-ID (HIP-Tag) is part of a research project funded by the Frenc National Researck Agency, and has been implemented for test purposes. Code sources are available The draft HIP and the IoT is a more general problem statement, dealing with protocol issues for the Internet Of Things. My proposal sould be to extend this draft as the first WG document for the IoT Best Regards Pascal 2009/12/1 Henderson, Thomas R <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> 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 (http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-rfcs-05.txt). 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 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/IRTF-RFCs, 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): http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/IRTF-RFCs#DocumentShepherds The document shepherd will work with the authors to advance the document to the state at which it is ready for IRSG review: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/IRTF-RFCs#IRSGReview. 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 hiprg@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hiprg
- [hiprg] HIPRG document process Henderson, Thomas R
- Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process Pascal Urien
- Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process Pascal Urien
- Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process Varjonen Samu
- Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process Gyu Myoung Lee
- Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process Henderson, Thomas R