[hiprg] HIP experiment report comment on opportunistic mode

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Tue, 06 December 2011 08:01 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA3CA21F8AD3 for <hiprg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:01:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WYZki4ZZPMo2 for <hiprg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:01:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.64.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3375421F8AC3 for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:01:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id pB681PxS016701 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id pB681PAi024936 for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwht-01.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.70.222]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id pB681O97024920 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK) for <hiprg@irtf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:01:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.25.85]) by XCH-NWHT-01.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.70.222]) with mapi; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:01:24 -0800
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: "hiprg@irtf.org" <hiprg@irtf.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:01:24 -0800
Thread-Topic: HIP experiment report comment on opportunistic mode
Thread-Index: Acyz7T+KpXAquXzsSHGiEXStT8RCvA==
Message-ID: <7CC566635CFE364D87DC5803D4712A6C4CF2319C0B@XCH-NW-10V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.800.1017-18562.005
x-tm-as-result: No--48.887200-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [hiprg] HIP experiment report comment on opportunistic mode
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: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:01:34 -0000

I would like to respond to one of Stephen Farrell's comment on the HIP experiment report:

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-hip-experiment/ballot/

The comment is:

" - I wondered what were the "controversial experiences" on p10. Seems
a shame to tease the reader like that."

The relevant section of text is:

   In the context of the HIPL project, the opportunistic mode has been
   successfully applied at the HIP layer for service registration
   [RFC5203].  However, there are controversial experiences on applying
   opportunistic mode at the application layer for legacy software.
   HIP4BSD implemented opportunistic mode successfully with small
   modifications to the FreeBSD socket layer to support opportunistic
   mode.

Could someone elaborate on the controversial experience (and perhaps provide a reference)?  Note that elsewhere in the report (section 2.3.2), the disadvantages and "leap of faith" aspects of opportunistic mode are elaborated on, so I'm wondering whether the reference to controversial experiences goes beyond the disadvantages already listed in section 2.3.2 (or whether we could instead strike those words from the draft and refer back to that section).

- Tom