Re: [Hipsec] Status of our next batch

[Gonzalo Camarillo <[e-mail]>]

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
>