Miika Komu wrote:
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.txtAdditionally, 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
+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
+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.
+1
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list Hipsec at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec