Re: [Hipsec] Need to close all draft-ietf-hip-dex-21 pending issues... before 2021-Jan-13...

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Certainly happy to do that, though it would need to be the first week of
December at earliest.


On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:35 AM Gonzalo Camarillo <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> yes, maybe a quick conference call with the authors and the relevant ADs
> would be the best way to agree on a way forward.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Gonzalo
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 13, 2020 23:48
> *To:* Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Miika Komu <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>; Erik Kline <
> [e-mail]>; Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> Terry Manderson <[e-mail]>; Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>;
> Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: Need to close all draft-ietf-hip-dex-21 pending issues...
> before 2021-Jan-13...
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> It is really up to the authors (representing the will of the HIP WG) to
> get a revised I-D addressing the SEC Ads’ concerns. If they are satisfied
> with open questions put in an appendix (e.g., “for future work”) and they
> clear their blocking DISCUSS points, then I will more than happy to give
> the final go to HIP DEX.
>
>
>
> Having email/voice exchanges with DISCUSS owners (and Ekr) can probably
> help as well.
>
>
>
> Did you consider changing the intended status to ‘experimental’ ?
>
>
>
> Obviously, the earlier, the better
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> -éric
>
>
>
> *From: *Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, 13 November 2020 at 20:10
> *To: *Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Miika Komu <
> [e-mail]>
> *Cc: *Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>, Erik Kline <
> [e-mail]>, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>, Terry Manderson <[e-mail]>,
> Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Need to close all draft-ietf-hip-dex-21 pending issues...
> before 2021-Jan-13...
>
>
>
> I have reached the point on going through all the old notes where any
> attempts at changes only seem cosmetic.  I spend a couple hours a week on
> it, trying something else.  I need to take a different approach, perhaps.
>
> I just completed another round of going through the various emails.
>
> What I am thinking about is put together a single note on what I perceive
> as outstanding issues, and put them in an Appendix.  I would push this out,
> still this month and see how things go from there.
>
> I have really tried to come to some accommodation on the issues raised.
>
> Events are somewhat catching up.  NIST LWC selection process may well
> result in renewing looks at technologies like HIP-DEX for 8-bit processors
> (see the latest LWC presentations including the build rate for 8-bit
> processors).
>
> I welcome your response.
>
> Bob
>
> On 11/13/20 9:32 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>
> Dear HIP, dear authors,
>
>
>
> This document was requested for publication [1] in February 2018 (2.5
> years ago), then its IESG evaluation has been deferred, then I took over
> this document from Terry Manderson in March 2019, then it went again
> through IESG evaluation in July 2020 and there are still DISCUSS points to
> be addressed even after a couple of revised I-D...
>
>
>
> Difficult not to observe that this document does not progress very fast.
>
>
>
> Moreover, this document is a normative reference for rfc4423-bis waiting
> in the RFC editor queue since March 2019... So, also blocking the HIP-NAT
> document [2].
>
>
>
> After discussion with the HIP chair, Gonzalo in cc, we have taken the
> following decision: if a revised I-D addressing remaining DISCUSS points +
> Ekr’s ones is not uploaded within 2 months (13th of January 2021), then I
> will request the HIP WG to accept the complete removal of section A.3.3 of
> the rfc4423-bis document (1 page about HIP-DEX in the appendix) + the
> reference to the HIP-DEX document [3]. This will allow the immediate
> publication of the rfc4423-bis and HIP-NAT documents.
>
>
>
> The HIP DEX authors may also select to change the intended status of the
> document to ‘experimental’ (if the HIP WG agrees) as this may reduce the
> security requirements by the SEC AD and Ekr.
>
>
>
> Gonzalo and I are still hoping to get a revised HIP-DEX shortly,
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> -éric
>
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-dex/history/
>
> [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C386
> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=79ca9a50-2651a37b-79cadacb-866038973a15-254f733fa2299a75&q=1&e=c8652521-144c-4c45-9db8-f04e01a7aa3d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rfc-editor.org%2Fcluster_info.php%3Fcid%3DC386>
>
> [3] and possibly I will set the state of HIP-DEX as ‘dead’ on the
> datatracker
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robert Moskowitz
> Owner
> HTT Consulting
> C:      248-219-2059
> F:      248-968-2824
> E:      [e-mail]
>
> There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets
> the credit
>
> -->
>