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

[Varjonen Samu <[e-mail]>]

Miika Komu wrote:
> Miika Komu wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> sorry, I missed one. +1 for hiccups too.

So did I :) +1
> 
>> Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> 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:
>>>
>>> "Specify a framework to build HIP-based overlays. This framework will
>>> describe how HIP can perform some of the tasks needed to build an
>>> overlay and how technologies developed somewhere else (e.g., a peer
>>> protocol developed in the P2PSIP WG) can complement HIP by performing
>>> the tasks HIP was not designed to perform."
>>>
>>> The WG item for this milestone is the following draft, which should be
>>> ready for WGLC:
>>>
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-bone-02.txt
>>>
>>> This draft defines a high-level framework to build HIP-based overlays.
>>> Additionally, its previous version defined how to build a HIP-based
>>> overlay using RELOAD. The authors have chosen to move this definition to
>>> a separate document because while the high-level framework is
>>> informational in nature, the definition makes use of normative language.
>>> The resulting document is the draft below. 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Fine by me.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Hipsec mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec