IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: KHI/ORCHIRD (was Re: [Hipsec] Draft status )

"Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com> Fri, 17 March 2006 05:59 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FK7zt-00027j-DD; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:59:37 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FK7zs-00027e-Em for hipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:59:36 -0500
Received: from slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com ([130.76.64.48]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FK7zr-0001mR-38 for hipsec@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:59:36 -0500
Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com ([192.76.190.6]) by slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com (8.9.2.MG.10092003/8.8.5-M2) with ESMTP id VAA18985; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:59:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-AV-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id k2H5xIw29057; Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:59:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: from XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.55.44]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:59:09 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: KHI/ORCHIRD (was Re: [Hipsec] Draft status )
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:58:47 -0800
Message-ID: <77F357662F8BFA4CA7074B0410171B6D01A2EEA3@XCH-NW-5V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1FK6nE-0004kx-00@alva.home>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: KHI/ORCHIRD (was Re: [Hipsec] Draft status )
Thread-Index: AcZJfUEyJOT2zfe6SqynD12dmZuUMAACauXw
From: "Henderson, Thomas R" <thomas.r.henderson@boeing.com>
To: Tim Shepard <shep@alum.mit.edu>, Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Mar 2006 05:59:09.0685 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8817A50:01C64987]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: hipsec@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/hipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: hipsec-bounces@lists.ietf.org

 
> 
> I'm thinking that this is perhaps not the best approach to deal with a
> legacy application.   
> 

I think that the library approach you mention is valid also, and offers
different levels of granularity of invoking HIP, and different reliance
on DNS, than does an approach that uses HITs as IP addresses at the API.
Teemu Koponen mentioned that approach to me last month as well.  I would
prefer that both approaches are supportable for experimentation.

> ((Is this the right list for this thought?))

Perhaps moving future responses to HIP RG list would be appropriate
(since legacy application discussions have previously been declared out
of our current WG charter).  Please see also:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-henderson-hip-applications-02.
txt

Tom

_______________________________________________
Hipsec mailing list
Hipsec@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email