Re: [Hipsec] Status of our next batch

Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu> Mon, 01 February 2016 05:59 UTC

Return-Path: <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660241ACDD0 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:59:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LpJ7Mn-p1JIG for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu (mxout25.s.uw.edu [140.142.234.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 095541ACDCF for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hymn02.u.washington.edu (hymn02.u.washington.edu [140.142.8.71]) by mxout25.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW15.02) with ESMTP id u115xDSL026366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:59:13 -0800
Received: from hymn02.u.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hymn02.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW14.04) with ESMTP id u115xBME027209; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:59:11 -0800
Received: from localhost (Unknown UID 17750@localhost) by hymn02.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+Submit-local) with ESMTP id u115xBPc027203; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:59:11 -0800
X-Auth-Received: from [73.239.169.224] by hymn02.u.washington.edu via HTTP; Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:59:11 PST
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 21:59:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1601312159110.17573@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
X-PMX-Version: 6.2.1.2493963, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2016.2.1.55416
X-PMX-Server: mxout25.s.uw.edu
X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report=' HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.05, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_1700_1799 0, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, __ANY_URI 0, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ 0, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT 0, __CP_URI_IN_BODY 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __FORWARDED_MSG 0, __HAS_FROM 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HTTPS_URI 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __MULTIPLE_URI_TEXT 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_END 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __URI_IN_BODY 0, __URI_NO_MAILTO 0, __URI_NS , __USER_AGENT 0'
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/FA66RZswScJdLAViD86Nb_SCg_Y>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of our next batch
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 05:59:48 -0000


On 11/17/2015 11:52 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> Authors of the following drafts,
> 
> could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen
> next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in
> the future?
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Gonzalo

Gonzalo and all,

Here is a brief update on the mobility and multihoming drafts. I posted a revision 10 of RFC5206-bis last week:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-10.txt

I believe that we could close all the remaining open issues as either resolved or wontfix (editorial); the changes that appear in draft-10 are as follows:
- issue 21: clarified that HI MAY be included in UPDATE
for benefit of middleboxes
- changed one informative reference from RFC 4423-bis to RFC 7401
- removed discussion about possible multiple LOCATOR_SET
and ESP_INFO parameters in an UPDATE (per previous
mailing list discussion)
- removed discussion about handling LOCATOR_SET parameters in packets
other than UPDATE (per previous mailing list discussion)

I had hoped to post a revision of the multihoming draft with all of the open issues resolved by now, but there is still some work for me to do, so I just refreshed the previous version for the time being:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-07.txt

I will work on publishing -08 shortly and then I think we could consider a WGLC on the pair of drafts.

- Tom