Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process

"Henderson, Thomas R" <> Wed, 02 December 2009 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE2E28C0EC for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:57:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R6mHrqPg7wGr; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:57:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15CC43A68FC; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id nB2Jv1GU020010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 13:57:03 -0600 (CST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id nB2Jv1Mj005407; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:57:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id nB2Jv157005400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:57:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:57:01 -0800
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <>
To: 'Gyu Myoung Lee' <>, 'Pascal Urien' <>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:57:00 -0800
Thread-Topic: [hiprg] HIPRG document process
Thread-Index: AcpzLjGFqbatTay5ShyxNh1V4ZxoswACLWHQAA3nK4A=
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <007101ca7341$b043c3e0$10cb4ba0$>
In-Reply-To: <007101ca7341$b043c3e0$10cb4ba0$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4C1CAF18D9XCHNW10Vnwnos_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 19:57:35 -0000

From: Gyu Myoung Lee []
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:22 AM
To: 'Pascal Urien'; Henderson, Thomas R
Subject: RE: [hiprg] HIPRG document process

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.

I am not aware of any progress in creating a new research group on IoT.  As for HIP and IoT, we heard a concern that HIP was being selected as a solution for IoT prematurely, without considering other alternatives such as XMPP.

 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.

I think it is within scope for the HIP RG to study whether HIP can be a solution to IoT networking problems, and to consider whether HIP needs to be extended or modified to support such solutions.  However, I think it is probably out of scope to write drafts about whether a HIP-based architecture is the best way to solve IoT networking problems in general.

Is there another document (such as from Study Group 13) that you could point us to that discusses "conceptual requirements and architecture for IoT without limiting to HIP"?
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.

We presently have two drafts that try to cover general naming and architectural issues:  draft-urien-hip-iot-00.txt and draft-lee-object-naming-01.txt, and both you and Pascal have separately suggested to move them forward as a RG draft, so we probably have to review that again and consider how we might end up with a single draft.

As for HIP for RF-ID draft, I'm not sure what you mean by "we should analyze various cases with consideration of naming and addressing architecture which other groups are developing," can you be more specific about the other groups to which you are referring?