Re: [Hipsec] Certs draft: experimental or PS

[Tobias Heer <[e-mail]>]

Hello, 

Am 18.01.2011 um 11:21 schrieb Ari Keranen:

> Hi,
> 
> I'd go for publishing experimental CERT now and bis'ed PS version later with the rest of the PS HIP stuff.
> 
I second that. I think it makes sense to publish the RFC as experimental first.

The draft is a companion document for 5201 (not bis).
I think it should be published as experimental right now. However, I think we might consider a non-experimental version in the future (when 5201-bis is done).

Tobias

> 
> Cheers,
> Ari
> 
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Hi Tobias,
>> 
>> yes, those are exactly the points that need to be considered. A straight
>> forward approach would be to publish this draft as experimental and then
>> create a bis draft, this time as a PS, which would reference 5201bis.
>> 
>> Another possibility is not to publish the experimental draft at all. We
>> could update the current draft so that it references 5201bis and publish
>> it together with 5201bis.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Gonzalo
>> 
>> 
>> On 18/01/2011 11:13 AM, Tobias Heer wrote:
>>> Hello Gonzalo,
>>> 
>>> Am 17.01.2011 um 14:53 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> in our last charter update, we decided to move the certs draft to the
>>>> standards track:
>>>> 
>>>> o Specify in a standards track RFC how to carry certificates in the
>>>> base exchange. This was removed from the base HIP spec so that the
>>>> mechanism is specified in a stand-alone spec.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I would like to double-check with the group. If we intend to
>>>> specify all this in 5201 bis anyway, it may make sense to publish this
>>>> as an Experimental RFC. If we want 5201bis to reference this spec, then
>>>> it needs to be PS. I would like to get your opinions on this issue?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I would be interested what the implications of PS or experimetal are for the publication of the draft.
>>> 
>>> Can we publish the draft as PS with downreferences to RFC5201 now (in absence of a 5201-bis) or would we have to wait until 5201-bis is approved?
>>> 
>>> If we go experimental, can we bis the cert draft later and go for PS instead?
>>> 
>>> One reason why I would not like to have the certs in 5201-bis is because it is a separate issue/problem/solution and does not really belong to the _base_ documents but rather extends it. As extension it covers a well defined problem space and can stand on its own.
>>> 
>>> Tobias
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>