Re: [Hipsec] Overlay work: status and request for input

[Jan Melen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Petri Jokela wrote:
>
> On 20.7.2009, at 12.33, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> 1) We have the following milestone:
>>
>> "Specify a framework to build HIP-based overlays. This framework will
> ...
>> The resulting document is the draft below. We would like to ask the WG
>> if it is OK to split our current milestone in two so that they cover the
>> high-level framework and the definition in separate documents.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-keranen-hip-reload-instance-00.txt 
>>
>>
>> Additionally, we would like to ask the WG if we should take the draft
>> above as the WG item associated to the milestone for the definition.
>>
>
> The proposal sounds reasonable, taking also into account the 
> discussion that has been going on in another thread.

+1

>
>> 2) We have the following milestone:
> ...
>> We still do not have a WG item for it but the following draft has been
>> around for some time. We would like to ask the WG if we should adopt the
>> following draft as the WG item for this milestone.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nikander-hip-hiccups-02.txt
>>
>
> For me, this sounds good. As in the previous case, taking into account 
> also the ongoing discussion on the related thread.

+1 and the concerns raised before IETF 75 are addressed in the -03 draft 
and some new that came up during IETF 75 will be addressed in -04


>
>> 3) In order to be able to support the functionality provided by RELOAD,
>> HIP needs to support multi-hop routing. Instead of specifying it in the
>> HIP BONE draft, having a separate draft seem to make more sense given
>> that this functionality has a more general applicability than overlays.
>> We would like to ask the WG if we should spin off a new milestone from
>> our original milestone for overlays that covers multihop routing in HIP.
>>
>> The following draft takes a stab at specifying multihop routing in HIP.
>> We would like to ask the WG if we should adopt it as a WG item for the
>> milestone above (assuming we decide to create the milestone).
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-hip-via-00.txt
>
> This sounds ok.
>

+1

>
>> 4) We have the following milestone:
>>
>> "Specify how to generate ORCHIDs from other node identifiers
>> including both cryptographic ones (leading to cryptographic
>> delegation) and non-cryptographic ones (e.g., identifiers defined by a
>> peer protocol)."
>>
>> When we created that milestone, we expected to have a generic mechanism
>> to transform node IDs into ORCHIDs. However, at this point, it seems
>> that such transformation will be done in different ways depending on the
>> peer protocol used in a particular overlay. For example, the instance
>> specification for RELOAD draft defines such transformation for RELOAD
>> peer identifiers. The fact that nobody has submitted a draft for that
>> milestone seems to confirm the previous impression. We would like to ask
>> the WG if we should remove that milestone from our charter.
>
> While there is no activity, it seems reasonable to remove it now.

Ok!

   Jan