2.3.7 Host Identity Protocol (hip)

NOTE: This charter is a snapshot of the 63rd IETF Meeting in Paris, France. It may now be out-of-date.
In addition to this official charter maintained by the IETF Secretariat, there is additional information about this working group on the Web at:

       Additional HIP Web Page

Last Modified: 2005-06-02


David Ward <dward@cisco.com>
Gonzalo Camarillo <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>

Internet Area Director(s):

Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>

Internet Area Advisor:

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>

Mailing Lists:

General Discussion: hipsec@ietf.org
To Subscribe: hipsec-request@ietf.org
In Body: In Body: subscribe
Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec/index.html

Description of Working Group:

The Host Identity Protocol (HIP) provides a method of
separating the end-point identifier and locator roles of
IP addresses. It introduces a new Host Identity (HI)
name space, based on public keys. The public keys are
typically, but not necessarily, self generated.

The specifications for the architecture and protocol
details for these mechanisms consist of:

        draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-05.txt (at RFC editor) and
        draft-moskowitz-hip-08.txt (soon -09.txt)

There are five publicly known, interoperating
implementations, some of which are open source.

Currently, the HIP base protocol works well with any pair
of co-operating end-hosts. However, to be more useful
and more widely deployable, HIP needs some support from
the existing infrastructure, including the DNS, and a new
piece of infrastructure, called the HIP rendezvous

| The purpose of this Working Group is to define the    |
| minimal infrastructure elements that are needed for  |
| HIP experimentation on a wide scale.                  |

In particular, the objective of this working group is to
complete the base protocol specification, define one or
more DNS resource records for storing HIP related data,
to complete the existing work on basic mobility and
multi-homing, and produce Experimental RFCs for these.

Note that even though the specifications are chartered
for Experimental, it is understood that their quality and
security properties should match the standards track
requirements. The main purpose for producing
Experimental documents instead of standards track ones
are the unknown effects that the mechanisms may have on
applications and on the Internet in the large.

It is expected that there will be a roughly parallel,
though perhaps considerably broader, IRTF Research Group
that will include efforts both on developing the more
forward looking aspects of the HIP architecture and on
exploring the effects that HIP may have on the applications
and the Internet.

The following are charter items for the working group:

1) Complete the HIP base protocol specification.
  Starting point: draft-moskowitz-hip-08.txt (or newer)

2) Complete the basic mobility and multi-homing support for HIP.
  Starting point: draft-nikander-hip-mm-01.txt (or newer)

While this work partially overlaps the work in Mobile
IP and Multi6 Working Groups, it is very different in
the sense that is based on the Experimental HIP
specification, and cannot function without it.

3) Define one or more new DNS Resource Records for
  storing HIP related data, such as Host Identifiers and
  Host Identity Tags (HITs). This task explicitly
  excludes the task of defining reverse DNS entries
  based on HITs.

4) Define a basic HIP rendezvous mechanism.

  A basic HIP rendezvous server allows mobile and
  non-mobile HIP hosts to register their current IP
  addresses at the server. Other hosts can then send
  the initial I1 packets to the rendezvous server, which
  forwards the packets to the HIP host's current address.

  This task explicitly excludes solving more general
  problems, such as the referral problem. Also excluded
  is the problem of finding the right rendezvous server.
  It is expected that the DNS records will be used for that.

  The Working Group bases all the work on the HIP achitecture
  specification (as defined above).

5) Complete the HIP Architecture specification
  Starting point: draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-06.txt

Goals and Milestones:

Done  First version of the HIP basic mobility and multi-homing mechanism specification.
Done  First version of the HIP DNS resource record(s) specification.
Done  First version of the HIP basic rendezvous mechanism specification.
Dec 04  WGLC on the HIP architecture specification
Jan 05  Submit the HIP architecture specification to the IESG
Mar 05  WG LC on the base protocol specification
Mar 05  WG LC on the base protocol specification
Apr 05  Complete the base protocol specification and submit it to the IESG for Experimental
Done  WG LC on the HIP basic mobility and multi-homing specification.
Apr 05  WG LC on the basic HIP rendezvous mechanism specification.
May 05  Submit the HIP DNS resource record(s) specification to the IESG for Experimental.
May 05  Submit the HIP basic mobility and multihoming specification to the IESG for Experimental.
May 05  Submit the basic HIP rendezvous mechanism specification to the IESG for Experimental.
May 05  Recharter or close the WG.


  • draft-ietf-hip-base-03.txt
  • draft-ietf-hip-arch-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-hip-mm-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-hip-dns-02.txt
  • draft-ietf-hip-rvs-03.txt
  • draft-ietf-hip-esp-00.txt

    No Request For Comments

    Current Meeting Report

    Minutes HIP WG at IETF 63

    Minutes edited by Gonzalo Camarillo
    Based on notes by Andrew McGregor
    Meeting chaired by Gonzalo Camarillo and David Ward

    MONDAY, August 1, 2005, 1400-1600

    Topic: Agenda Bash
    Discussions led by: Chairs

    There were no comments on the agenda

    Topic: Status
    Discussions led by: Chairs

    Architecture draft: Tom Henderson is incorporating the comments received from the IESG because both Pekka and Bob did not have time to do this. Tom will have a new revision addressing all the comments received right after this IETF meeting (i.e., in one week).

    Base HIP spec and ESP draft: the WGLC is over. Petri Jokela (the editor of both drafts) will have a new revision ready to be sent to the IESG in a couple of weeks.

    Rest of our WG items: the idea is to request their publication before the end of the year.

    Topic: Base HIP spec
    Discussion led by: Petri Jokela
    Relevant document: draft-ietf-hip-base-03.txt

    In principle, the draft will keep informative and normative references. Petri will analyze the normative references in order to see whether the draft depends on other drafts that will not be ready for publication soon.

    A draft is needed in order to trigger discussions within the IPv6 community on how to encode the hashing algorithm in a HIT. Pekka offered his help with the draft, but nobody volunteered to actually write it. The chairs will look for a volunteer off-line or, if nobody wants to do the job, they will write it themselves.

    There was consensus in the room to remove type 2 HITs. Petri will send a note to the list and to Bob to confirm that it is OK to remove them.

    Topic: ESP draft
    Discussion led by: Petri Jokela
    Relevant document: draft-ietf-hip-esp-00.txt

    Petri will add some clarifications about the ESP_INFO parameter.

    Topic: Mobility and Multihoming
    Discussion led by: Pekka Nikander
    Relevant document: draft-ietf-hip-mm-02.txt

    The draft now is aligned with the base HIP spec and the ESP draft. Address checks for new addresses is now mandatory. Credit-based authorization used for new addresses to prevent amplification attacks. The draft now follows the guidelines of RFC 4101 (Writing Protocol Models). Policies are now outside the scope of the draft.

    When updating address sets, there was consensus in the room to use full sets instead of deltas, although deltas could be useful in cases involving large numbers of addresses. Pekka will check in the list whether or not is OK to only use full sets.

    The WGLC on this draft is expected to take place around November.

    Topic: HIP DNS Extensions
    Discussion led by: Julien Laganier
    Relevant document: draft-ietf-hip-dns-02.txt

    The draft should point out the benefits of initially performing a single DNS query, instead of performing several in parallel (i.e., if the initial query fails the client can avoid performing the rest of them). However, the draft should not mandate this behavior, although it could recommend it.

    Julien will follow the discussion on the removal of type 2 HITs. Once that discussion is resolved, the draft will be ready for WGLC.

    Topic: HIP Registration Extensions
    Discussion led by: Julien Laganier
    Relevant document: draft-koponen-hip-registration-01

    Initially these extensions were part of the rendezvous draft. The chairs will talk to the AD in order to add this to our charter.

    Topic: HIP Rendezvous Servers Extensions
    Discussion led by: Julien Laganier
    Relevant document: draft-ietf-hip-rvs-03.txt

    Julien will check with Hannes about the implementation status and report to the list. This draft will be ready for WGLC fairly soon.


    Status and Agenda Bash
    Base spec and ESP draft
    End-Host Mobility and Multi-Homing
    HIP DNS Extensions
    HIP Registration Extensions
    HIP Rendezvous Servers Extensions