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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

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
[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit
-->