Re: [Hipsec] Status of our next batch

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 658491B3105 for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:06:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lfmwQv58DGxu for <hipsec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:06:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9249D1B3102 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 07:06:44 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-f79a76d000000a93-af-56b36902f0a9
Received: from ESESSHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.24]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id CC.5B.02707.20963B65; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:06:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [131.160.126.251] (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 16:06:42 +0100
To: Tom Henderson <tomhend@u.washington.edu>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1601312159110.17573@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <56B36901.1030407@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:06:41 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1601312159110.17573@hymn02.u.washington.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7hC5T5uYwgz9fjC2mLprMbDHz/EE2 ByaPJUt+Mnm0XI8JYIrisklJzcksSy3St0vgyrixYCJbwVH+ios9b5gaGK/zdDFycEgImEgs O5HfxcgJZIpJXLi3nq2LkYtDSOAwo0Tj8m+sEM4aRon3lzaygVQJC+hJbLs+iR3EFhHQkbj0 YgsriC0k4Cmx+eE5FhCbWUBSYvmmX2D1bAIWEltu3QeL8wpoSxxZcYMRxGYRUJF48GwNWK+o QIzExc4jTBA1ghInZz4Bq+cU8JJY9/84I8RMA4kji+awQtjyEtvfzmGG2KstsfxZC8sERsFZ SNpnIWmZhaRlASPzKkbR4tTipNx0IyO91KLM5OLi/Dy9vNSSTYzAYD245bfBDsaXzx0PMQpw MCrx8Br4bQoTYk0sK67MPcQowcGsJMK7O2VzmBBvSmJlVWpRfnxRaU5q8SFGaQ4WJXHe1c7r w4QE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2MGzd/kNv4SXuPeLLwqrxH1e5Kn0JWmzA1JzUHfFh2affV pzXnZdWFHYPvzwrVFQ8u0VhlfqMkc/fu9RVuCVsuvlp2uz+xxSXMe/slqwUZnma9S65+0hXS cn7at0tKvW/G1imPZlTtWu1SrKyaorS0v6m+yuZc97MfD2u0MuV/Se/ddWFOqJaOEktxRqKh FnNRcSIAm9ZnGFICAAA=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hipsec/oPCBXXG1rEyXY119vqiTxujgEng>
Cc: HIP <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Status of our next batch
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hipsec/>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 15:06:46 -0000

Hi Tom,

thanks for the update. We will wait until you get around to revising the
multihoming draft as well and then we will WGLC them together.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 01/02/2016 7:59 AM, Tom Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/17/2015 11:52 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>> Authors of the following drafts,
>>
>> could you please let the WG know their status and what needs to happen
>> next for each of them in order to be able to WGLC them at some point in
>> the future?
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming/
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-native-nat-traversal/
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis/
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis/
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Gonzalo
> 
> Gonzalo and all,
> 
> Here is a brief update on the mobility and multihoming drafts. I posted a revision 10 of RFC5206-bis last week:
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-rfc5206-bis-10.txt
> 
> I believe that we could close all the remaining open issues as either resolved or wontfix (editorial); the changes that appear in draft-10 are as follows:
> - issue 21: clarified that HI MAY be included in UPDATE
> for benefit of middleboxes
> - changed one informative reference from RFC 4423-bis to RFC 7401
> - removed discussion about possible multiple LOCATOR_SET
> and ESP_INFO parameters in an UPDATE (per previous
> mailing list discussion)
> - removed discussion about handling LOCATOR_SET parameters in packets
> other than UPDATE (per previous mailing list discussion)
> 
> I had hoped to post a revision of the multihoming draft with all of the open issues resolved by now, but there is still some work for me to do, so I just refreshed the previous version for the time being:
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-hip-multihoming-07.txt
> 
> I will work on publishing -08 shortly and then I think we could consider a WGLC on the pair of drafts.
> 
> - Tom
>