[Hipsec] A concrete HIP WG & RG proposal as feed for thought

[[e-mail] ([e-mail])]

Hi Pekka,

> Taking a different angle on how to organize the HIP work,
> I think that it is also useful to think in very concrete
> terms.  My previous mail tried to focus on the various
> in-the-large aspects that we have to consider here.  This
> mail puts forward a concrete but certainly not ready proposal
> for a HIP WG and an RG with a slightly larger scope.  Both
> groups could use the same mailing list, at least initially.

I think that it is an excellent idea to try to have a more
concrete discusson about ths.  In general, I agree with the=20
split you are proposing, but I do have a few comments and=20
questions.

> HIP WG
>=20
> Chairs: David Ward, Gonzalo Camarillo

Technically, Thomas and I will choose the chairs for this
WG.  We do appreciate your suggestions, though!
=20
> A 6-9 month WG that would produce the following documents:
>=20
>   1. HIP base protocol specification.  Experimental RFC.
>      Base document: draft-moskowitz-hip-08/09.txt
>      Document Editor: Petri Jokela
>=20
>   2. Basic mobility and multi-homing with HIP.  Experimental RFC.
>      Base document: draft-nikander-hip-mm-01.txt (-00 is not=20
>      good enough)
>      Document Editor: Pekka Nikander

These both look good.  Were you also planning to publish a WG
version of the architecture?  Or is the individual submission
version good enough for now?
=20
>   3. DNS resource record for storing HIP Host Identifiers and HITs.
>      Experimental RFC.
>      Base document author: Michael Richardson
>      Document Editor: Needs to be defined
>=20
>      This is a simple RR that is very much like IPSECKEY RR.
>      It just stores a public key and/or a hash of a public key.
>=20
>   4. A simple rendezvous server for HIP.  Experimental RFC.
>      Base document author: Pekka Nikander
>      Document Editor: Needs to be defined
>=20
>      This is a simple node that forwards I1 packets to a
>      registered IP address and does nothing else. [...]

Both of these look good, too.  What is the timeframe for having
first drafts of these documents?

> LOC/ID SPLIT AND HIP (LISHIP) RG

I think all of the RG topics look interesting.  One question:  Would
you want this to be an open RG, or a closed one?

Also, I would probably break the HIP work into two separate mailing=20
lists once these things spin up...   I think that would help to keep=20
the WG focused on the short-term deliverables.
=20
>   -  Applications guideline.  Informational RFC.
>=20
>      How something like HIP would affect the applications.
>      There is also a new mailing list, aulli, for discussing
>      some related aspects.

I'm wondering if this should be done in the RG or in the WG...
We may want to talk to the applications folks about this, and
figure out what makes the most sense.  I'd also expect this
document to be interesting and useful for the multi6 folks.
 =20
> Now, as you can see, there seems to be enough of food for both
> a working group and a research group.  There seems also to be
> enough of people that actually want to use HIP so that the WG
> would most probably be manned and produce useful things.  On the
> other hand, so far there definitely has been enough of people
> interested on researching HIP so that I would expect the RG to
> be fairly lively and actually produce output.

I agree, and I think that this makes sense as a way to move
forward.  What do others think?

Margaret