Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process

"Gyu Myoung Lee" <> Wed, 02 December 2009 11:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E81E628C1C8 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:32:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.597
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJHYmrv-k-kc for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:32:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8EF628C1BF for <>; 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 with Spamsniper 2.96.35 (Processed in 2.589736 secs);
Received: from unknown (HELO gmlee) (gmleexw@ by unknown with SMTP; 2 Dec 2009 20:25:37 +0900
From: Gyu Myoung Lee <>
To: 'Pascal Urien' <>, "'Henderson, Thomas R'" <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:22:06 +0100
Message-ID: <007101ca7341$b043c3e0$10cb4ba0$>
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
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 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

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: [] On Behalf Of
Pascal Urien
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:02 AM
To: Henderson, Thomas R
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



2009/12/1 Henderson, Thomas R <>

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
8) DNS Locators
9) HIP DHT interface
10) HIP services
11) HIP middleboxes
14) Mobile router
15) HIP Proxy (Melen, Ylitalo, Salmela)
16) HIP proxies (Zhang, Xu, Yao)

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