Re: [Hipsec] Certs draft: experimental or PS

[Samu Varjonen <[e-mail]>]

On 18/01/11 13:22, Tobias Heer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am 18.01.2011 um 11:21 schrieb Ari Keranen:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd go for publishing experimental CERT now and bis'ed PS version later with the rest of the PS HIP stuff.
>>
> I second that. I think it makes sense to publish the RFC as experimental first.
>
> The draft is a companion document for 5201 (not bis).
> I think it should be published as experimental right now. However, I think we might consider a non-experimental version in the future (when 5201-bis is done).
>
> Tobias
>

+1

BR, Samu

>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ari
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>> Hi Tobias,
>>>
>>> yes, those are exactly the points that need to be considered. A straight
>>> forward approach would be to publish this draft as experimental and then
>>> create a bis draft, this time as a PS, which would reference 5201bis.
>>>
>>> Another possibility is not to publish the experimental draft at all. We
>>> could update the current draft so that it references 5201bis and publish
>>> it together with 5201bis.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Gonzalo
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18/01/2011 11:13 AM, Tobias Heer wrote:
>>>> Hello Gonzalo,
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.01.2011 um 14:53 schrieb Gonzalo Camarillo:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> in our last charter update, we decided to move the certs draft to the
>>>>> standards track:
>>>>>
>>>>> o Specify in a standards track RFC how to carry certificates in the
>>>>> base exchange. This was removed from the base HIP spec so that the
>>>>> mechanism is specified in a stand-alone spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I would like to double-check with the group. If we intend to
>>>>> specify all this in 5201 bis anyway, it may make sense to publish this
>>>>> as an Experimental RFC. If we want 5201bis to reference this spec, then
>>>>> it needs to be PS. I would like to get your opinions on this issue?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would be interested what the implications of PS or experimetal are for the publication of the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Can we publish the draft as PS with downreferences to RFC5201 now (in absence of a 5201-bis) or would we have to wait until 5201-bis is approved?
>>>>
>>>> If we go experimental, can we bis the cert draft later and go for PS instead?
>>>>
>>>> One reason why I would not like to have the certs in 5201-bis is because it is a separate issue/problem/solution and does not really belong to the _base_ documents but rather extends it. As extension it covers a well defined problem space and can stand on its own.
>>>>
>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gonzalo
>>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Hipsec mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec