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

Robert Moskowitz <> Fri, 13 November 2020 19:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 568873A1068; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:10:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oklT5DcHPvrB; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:10:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9273E3A1065; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:10:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3669B624B7; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:10:48 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id I762+QvKEVht; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:10:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3DCF462311; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:10:36 -0500 (EST)
To: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Miika Komu <>
Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <>, Erik Kline <>, Eric Rescorla <>, "" <>, Terry Manderson <>, Benjamin Kaduk <>, Roman Danyliw <>
References: <>
From: Robert Moskowitz <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 14:10:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------901B5C5EB890C12AE9BDEC29"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 00:48:23 -0800
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Need to close all draft-ietf-hip-dex-21 pending issues... before 2021-Jan-13...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 19:10:55 -0000

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.


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 (13^th 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] 
> <>
> [2] 
> <>
> [3] and possibly I will set the state of HIP-DEX as ‘dead’ on the 
> datatracker

Standard Robert Moskowitz
HTT Consulting

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