[hiprg] planned closure of HIPRG

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 23:16 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
X-Original-To: hiprg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hiprg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143C621F85B8 for <hiprg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8YCRDnMUakjR for <hiprg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com (blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9B921F8584 for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com []) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id q3NNGQF7021817 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost []) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q3NNGPZO021118; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-04.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-04.nw.nos.boeing.com []) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id q3NNGPth021110 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([]) by XCH-NWHT-04.nw.nos.boeing.com ([]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:25 -0700
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: "hiprg@irtf.org" <hiprg@irtf.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:16:24 -0700
Thread-Topic: planned closure of HIPRG
Thread-Index: Ac0dgNbShIMXrMW0Svao16HsFlMPyAEI3X/w
Message-ID: <758141CC3D829043A8C3164DD3D593EA1BD24C86E9@XCH-NW-16V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "hip-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <hip-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [hiprg] planned closure of HIPRG
X-BeenThere: hiprg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Host Identity Protocol \(HIP\) Research Group" <hiprg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 23:16:49 -0000

After some discussion with the IRTF chair, we have decided to initiate plans to close this RG, due to lack of activity for several meeting cycles and no visible prospects for an infusion of new collaborative work.  Although work continues on HIP, much of the current interest is in developing specifications in the WG.

We have the issue of three unfinished RG drafts, on the topics of HIP proxies, revocation, and RFID.  Based on our experience of how the review process works, these are not yet ready for the IRSG stream process without additional work.  There are three possible outcomes for these drafts:

 (1) finish these in the RG before it closes
 (2) authors take back these drafts and try to have them adopted in the WG
 (3) authors take back these drafts and try to publish them on the independent stream

As chairs, we are willing to try option (1) if both the authors and the RG agree to do this.  For this to succeed, we will need to have participation from the RG (not just the authors and chairs).  

If we proceed with (1), the IETF-84 ID submission cutoff is July 13.  Drafts that the RG hasn't gotten into a publishable shape by then will go back to the authors, with (2) or (3) as options.  Publishable shape is defined by the chairs who must shepherd these documents through the review process and who must deal with the various review comments that will arise.  This includes both an assessment that the draft is in sound technical and editorial shape, and that the draft has been, in some way, a product of the RG and not just the draft authors and chairs.

We will post, in separate threads, some suggested next steps and open issues on the current RG drafts.  

Tom and Andrei