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

[Tobias Heer <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gonzalo.

Comments inline:
Am 20.07.2009 um 12:33 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo:

> 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:
>
> 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.
>
I think it makes sense - yes.

> 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.
>

Provided the issues that Tom pointed out can be resolved, I support  
this decision.

> 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
>

I am fine with this, too.

> 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
>
> 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.
>

I agree.

BR,

Tobias

> Thanks,
>
> Gonzalo
> HIP co-chair
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec




--  

Dipl.-Inform. Tobias Heer, Ph.D. Student
Distributed Systems Group
RWTH Aachen University, Germany
tel: [phone]
web: http://ds.cs.rwth-aachen.de/members/heer