Re: [hiprg] HIPRG document process

Pascal Urien <> Wed, 02 December 2009 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950053A68B1 for <>; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 00:58:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R8Flo1URsuyp; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 00:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2873A6908; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 00:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk16 with SMTP id 16so2253203qyk.15 for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:58:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=MrnQnWMXVYU6Mvxs3BHoBBT9nxJqLaczcrWViq1Z31I=; b=KVtjT4DX/VR+IRudpYx8fQ6p0WH5EFJssJ4rNSxDvQEoZwZ3vYG9EO/+ziWgyq/FMn gzqcLU8UAUjScU/CSMRCDMq+OT93KUUtZWrKyvGkCtOWMdrDicFIg7n6HpGlymFLQQPa tUMODDSJPFn7SYhaXTfbUORHLrUKrL9KIZoLQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=gmla+MSR0T++bWIHB0Q98CrFrGjMyAhXo2i28UoOOfur+wyStIYiv57lMEmIRNp4RC uVpCQ94tRn/+cKkXmPgCTrFgwNr2pDtcLHcVo4sCrSOc1WF7gf+1v1YbXKhUVPL/3HdO 0UjrLcualQRM6+mj2/UvMqEMPTdEOu4dcumbU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id v9mr968964qcf.21.1259744292174; Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:58:12 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:58:12 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Pascal Urien <>
To: "Henderson, Thomas R" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016364ee8d40afba80479bb13e0"
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 08:58:22 -0000

Dear all,

I support the idea to introduce HIP for Internet Of things as WG working.
The draft HIP for RF-ID (HIP-Tag) is part of a reserach project funded by
the Frenc National Researck Agency, and has been implemented for test

The draft HIP and the IoT is a

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
> 7) HIT2IP
> 8) DNS Locators
> 9) HIP DHT interface
> 10) HIP services
> 11) HIP middleboxes
> 12) HIP SAVA
> 13) HIP SRP
> 14) Mobile router
> 15) HIP Proxy (Melen, Ylitalo, Salmela)
> 16) HIP proxies (Zhang, Xu, Yao)
> 17) ECC HIP
> 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