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

[Miika Komu <[e-mail]>]

Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

Hi,

> Folks,
> 
> here you have a summary of the status of the overlay work.
> Additionally, we have some questions for the WG related to our
> milestones and their related charter items. Your input on those
> questions is very welcome.
> 
> 1) We have the following milestone:
> 
> "Specify a framework to build HIP-based overlays. This framework will
> describe how HIP can perform some of the tasks needed to build an
> overlay and how technologies developed somewhere else (e.g., a peer
> protocol developed in the P2PSIP WG) can complement HIP by performing
> the tasks HIP was not designed to perform."
> 
> The WG item for this milestone is the following draft, which should be
> ready for WGLC:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-bone-02.txt
> 
> This draft defines a high-level framework to build HIP-based overlays.
> Additionally, its previous version defined how to build a HIP-based
> overlay using RELOAD. The authors have chosen to move this definition to
> a separate document because while the high-level framework is
> informational in nature, the definition makes use of normative language.
> 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.

+1

> 2) We have the following milestone:
> 
> "Specify how to carry upper-layer data over specified HIP
> packets. These include some of the existing HIP packets and possibly
> new HIP packets (e.g., a HIP packet that occurs outside a HIP base
> exchange)."
> 
> 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
> 
> Revision 02 of the draft above is identical to 01 (the only changes are
> the date and the new copyright). The authors intend to address the
> comments received on the list shortly.
> 
> 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

+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.

Fine by me.