[Hipsec-rg] future work on naming objects in HIP

[gmlee at icu.ac.kr (Gyu Myoung Lee)]

Dear All,

As we have discussed several times on object related work, it seems that
most of experts have some interesting points but we still have technically
alternative solutions. Thus, it will be more productive way to officially
work together on this topic as a RG item  

First of all, in order to initiate this work as a RG item, I believe that we
sincerely need to work on a broadly scoped high-level informational
document. In addition, we also need to develop documents on detailed
solution spaces simultaneously.

In this case, hip-object document will be a candidate for high level
informational document which contains basic concept, various technical
options and use cases, etc. I can take the responsibility for developing
this document and also would like to invite several experts for valuable
comments and inputs.

Look forward to your reply.

Best Regards,

Gyu Myoung Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: Henderson, Thomas R [mailto:thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 4:25 PM
To: hipsec-rg at listserv.cybertrust.com
Cc: Gyu Myoung Lee; Samu Varjonen; Pascal.Urien at enst.fr; Robert Moskowitz;
Andrei Gurtov
Subject: future work on naming objects in HIP


Hi all,
Gyu Myoung Lee has requested the research group to consider whether to
adopt the HIP extensions for object to object communications as a RG
draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-hip-object-02

This draft has been presented twice at the RG meeting.  Pascal Urien
also has presented work on HIP and RFID tags:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-urien-hip-tag-01

At the last meeting, after the presentation of object to object
communications, there were two comments at the mike:
- Robert Moskowitz commented that objects could be supported without
modifying HIP by treating objects as services
- Pascal Urien commented that privacy issues need to be considered in
any such solution

As a RG, we have a lot of latitude in deciding on what to work on and
how to work on it, especially since this work area is not within the
charter of the HIP working group.  So, I see a couple of options, should
the group decide to work on this topic:

- we could pick up one or both of the existing drafts above, or pieces
of them, and work on them as RG documents, with the intention of putting
any such drafts through the IRTF document stream process:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rfcs-03

- we could work on a more broadly scoped informational document
describing various options and tradeoffs of linking HIP identifiers with
other identifiers or other protocols that convey different notions of
identity.  For instance, Samu Varjonen's draft on how HIP and SRP may be
combined could be seen as another example of this type of extension:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-varjonen-hip-srp-00

Or, if there isn't a group of people who indicate interest in working on
such RG documents, the authors can continue to publish them as
individual submissions.

So, at this point, I'd like to invite discussions about what the RG
would like to collectively do in this space, as well as invite any
technical discussion that may be needed for people to decide on this
point.

- Tom