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

thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com (Henderson, Thomas R) Wed, 08 April 2009 14:24 UTC

From: "thomas.r.henderson at boeing.com"
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:24:53 -0700
Subject: [Hipsec-rg] future work on naming objects in HIP
Message-ID: <77F357662F8BFA4CA7074B0410171B6D07B0C02C@XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>

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

This draft has been presented twice at the RG meeting.  Pascal Urien
also has presented work on HIP and RFID tags:

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:

- 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:

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

- Tom